Diplomats are trained professional liars.

I'm sure even one as inept as Wilson could beat the box if he were strapped in and perjur himself with impunity.

I don't know. It all sounds a little too much of a masterplan to me, the idea they intended to go public with the no Niger connection long before Bush made his 2003 SOTU address.

Wilson wasn't an arms specialist but he was a foreign service hand with prior service in Niger and that neck of the woods.

To me though, it just seems like Plame and Wilson had made their minds made up Saddam wasn't trying to procure uranium before he even left to investigate. And his investigation seemed to comprise of him asking government officials "Did Saddam approach you with offers of illegal but highly lucrative uranium trade?" and took their answer of "No, no such thing happened" as solid enough proof. African politicians aren't reknown for their integrity and unwillingness to use their offices for profit.

That, plus the fact that Wilson was calling into issue a minor detail of the SOTU speech which was not the one and only reason for the war was why I thought this whole business would have blown over in a month or two just like every other "Get Bush" non-scandal. The Wilson's tenacity and the media's hate of the Bush has kept it alive though. But looking at the real, objective impact of Wilson's allegations........what have they been? A big goose egg.

Even if Saddam had definitely sought or even acquired yellowcake from abroad, does anyone think this would have altered the opinion of the anti-war crowd and the media in the least about whether Saddam should have been overthown? This whole issue is just bunk and meaningless.

I think all of Ms. Toensing's points are excellent reasons for Wilson's CIA handlers to be 'frog-marched' out of their building and into a court. But the grand conspiracy theory seems a little byzantine.

Keep digging, kid. You're on the right track.

Great article Deep Throat Me. Thanks.

The words that keep crossing my mind after reading all this are "overt act" and "testimony of two witnesses."

(Google it.)

a foreign service hand with prior service in Niger and that neck of the woods

Which is to say he knew where all the good bars, restaurants and hookers could be found.

Seriously, we could have just asked a local cab driver for their opinion on Saddam and uranium and gotten similar results.

I've noticed on a lot of stickers, a general denunciation of the so called "blue states". I know it's more of a humorous jab, but why make bumper stickers lumping the blue states with the "axis of weasel"? or have them ommited or blacked out? what is this great country of ours without its historical birthplace of new england? without the capital of the world, new york city? the major financial, educational, and cultural centers of the country? cities like boston, philadelphia, chicago, l.a.? are they no less important?

I think it's long past time for the president to ELIMINATE the CIA. Multiple administrations have tried to reform it, and I think it's clear that such a task is not possible, given the entrenched staff that feels they are the proper ones to direct and set foreign policy.

Bush could be assisted in that task by the State Dept., who regularly have their efforts short-circuited by the CIA.

Not, of course, that the State Dept. is pro-US, but, one enemy at a time.

well, it's always good to have dissenting points of view, rather than complete uniformity in thought- whether in politics or in a president's cabinet, or in foreign policy decisions. It is the balance of power that our founding fathers purposely set up- were they wrong? We do not live in a dictatorship as you seem to imply we should

it's always good to have dissenting points of view

True, but the behaviors of the CIA and State Department have far exceeded dissension. Whe the departments have a deep-set political affiliation and are working at cross-purposes to the administration, it is mutiny, not a healthy dissension.

It is the balance of power that our founding fathers purposely set up

The departments in question both lie within the Executive Branch, and thus have nothing to do with the balance of power set up in the Constitution.

however the balance of power is an idea that is meant to transcend the three branches. i understand wanting to have all your ducks in a row as it were, but to expect the kind of uniformity within government which you seem to think necessary is quite unrealistic don't you think? not to mention unamerican in my opinion. other administrations have been able to level off varying points of view, to take into account a spectrum of differing ideas, why shoudln't this one? the state dept. had their own post iraq plan which called for more troops and a faster electoral process. maybe their plan would have worked better, who knows? i don't consider that mutinous, i consider it putting forth ideas.

Deep Throat,

I don't know if you posted the Howard Fineman link tongue-in-cheek but on the off chance you didn't here is where he loses credibility with me:

The impeachment of Bill Clinton wasn’t really about perjury, per se, it was about the culture wars of the ’90s: his laissez faire mores vs. the GOP’s (often hypocritical) Bible Belt propriety

This is the most assinine analysis of Bill Clinton's impeachment I've ever read, bar none. How can you believe anything else the guy writes?

the balance of power is an idea that is meant to transcend the three branches

Not to my knowledge. The departments and agencies within the Executive Branch were established by the Presidency, and are supposed to follow the direction of the President. They may offer opposing views, but once decisions are made they are supposed to support the policies of the President.

Once again, we are not talking about simple disagreements here. We are talking about federal employees actively working to undermine the directives of the President.

why make bumper stickers lumping the blue states with the "axis of weasel

They sell.

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

For Ace's and Victoria's benefit, the pressing need to get the right man on the job in Niger cut through the red tape normally associated with CIA field work.

like trip reports,

or confidentiality agreements,

or any of that other bureaucratic stuff.

The only question I have is whether companies or indiviiduals based in Niger made large contributions to the Kerry campaign soon after Wilson arrived in Niger or immediately upon his return.

Joe Wilson - bag man, I can believe.

Joe Wilson, expert on WMD/trade - not so much.

which policies do you refer to? i never knew the CIA was supposed to follow lock-step with the president.- even though they did during the run up to war. if the CIA finds countervailing evidence, I believe it is within its bounds, in fact, it should be required to speak up.

We elect a president, he is the people's employee, we do not appoint kings or emporers.

or, put another way, have you ever seen James Bond fill out an expense report? Hmmmmmmm?

I'd like to reemphasize one point: Joe Wilson, one man, went to Niger.

Here's a question that maybe Josh Marshall or Matt Yglesias could answer: Just how much could Joe POSSIBLY accomplish during his lone week in Niger?

Wilson is not a document expert.

He's not carrying some super secret WMD detection gear on his person.

He's not travelling as an official Ambassador.

He's not getting in a LandCruiser and scouring the countryside looking for piles of yellow-dusty dirt near loading docks or travelling to the YellowCake mines and seeing if there are Iraqi advisers on-site.

He was sitting in a room, drinking sweet tea.

That's the reality.

So, how on god's earth can the Reality-Based give credence to the claims made by Joe Wilson?

.

i never knew the CIA was supposed to follow lock-step with the president.- even though they did during the run up to war. if the CIA finds countervailing evidence, I believe it is within its bounds, in fact, it should be required to speak up.

Sigh. Yes, the CIA is supposed to follow lock-step with the President. They are not an independent agency that reports to the American people, they are a tool established by the President to execute his policy. In cases where members of the CIA feel that an injustice is served by the President's use of the agency and/or its information, they may, as individuals, speak out. This is called whistle-blowing.

But the Director of the CIA has only two options - execute the President's policies, or resign in protest. He cannot circumvent the President and go directly to the press and public with his own story. That would be like Bill Gates establishing Microsoft's corporate strategy, and then having the XBox Division go out to the press and say that he was all wrong.

The President is the people's employee, but he is the CEO of the Executive Branch. Period.

So, how on god's earth can the Reality-Based give credence to the claims made by Joe Wilson?

Don't forget that he also wasn't allowed to talk to acting government officials (the US Embassy in Niger took care of them) - he only talked to people in industry and former officials. Coming back and telling us that his report could stand by itself in debunking the Nigerien uranium story was quite an act of hubris.

Hey everybody, congrats goes out for this great posting! Let's try to make this string the replacement for the worst.stunt.ever string?

We elect a president, he is the people's employee, we do not appoint kings or emporers.

The method to protect ourselves against kings and emperors is called term limits. But for four years, maybe eight, the guy in the big leather chair calls the shots. If the CIA has analysis that contradicts the presidents policies, their burden is to tell him that. Not us.

It amazes me, the leakiness of public employees. Speaking as someone from the private sector, I consider it gigantically unprofessional. You feed your data to the guy at the top, and he makes decisions. Sometimes he makes bad decisions. Sometimes you might even have the temerity to argue with him. But, in the end, he decides. You leak outside the company and you are so unemployed. Now, if your disagreement is great enough that you feel compelled to resign, that is another thing. But you do not piss in the well we all drink from.

This line of thinking has been vexing me for a while. Suppose you're at the CIA and you're taking the fall for the WMD blunder. Now if the invasion is a debacle your blunder is magnified. If it's a success and Iraq is democratized, it mitigates your blunder.

So why try to undermine it once it's underway? The only answer I an think of is blatant partisanship. Sure, it seems obvious now that Wilson is too partisan to trust, but Wilson isn't acting alone here.

If elements in the CIA believe they can cover their asses by sabotaging Operation Iraqi Freedom, they have made yet another mistake. I have trouble believing you could round up enough fools at the Agency to support that strategy. Unless this faction believes Bush is The Beast, only partisanship explains it.

The other question I have for the Reality-Based when the topic of 'the run up to the war' is this:

Can fewer than 100 inspectors in-country determine whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

If so, how long would that take?

I mean, Poland, let's not forget about Poland, sent 1,700 troops and the United Effing Nations can muster up fewer than 100 people to go conduct WMD and IAEA inspections? Given four years to prepare for the resumption of inspections?

Reality, the Bane of the Reality-Based
.

which policies do you refer to? i never knew the CIA was supposed to follow lock-step with the president.- even though they did during the run up to war. if the CIA finds countervailing evidence, I believe it is within its bounds, in fact, it should be required to speak up.

We elect a president, he is the people's employee, we do not appoint kings or emporers.

Criminy, is it too much to ask of you trolls that you actually take some time to find out how our government works before displaying your ignorance?

Here you go. No need to thank me.

On Joe Wilson:

Even the claims this guy made in his NYT piece support this "what good could he possibly have done even if he meant well" meme. The gist of his story was that he spoke with several Nigerian officials while drinking tea, and came away from the conversations convinced that Iraq had not even attempted to acquire any yellowcake from Niger. But for some reason, he never considers the possibilty that the folks he spoke with might have been genuinely ignorant of such a transaction taking place even though it did. He further ignores the possibility (and maybe this is just crazy talk) that a bunch of jackasses who just sold yellowcake to Saddam might not just up and admit it to an American over a drink. As I recall, even the Senate investigation into pre-war intelligence failures determined that the pitiful weakness of the information Joe Wilson provided had not impact whatever on big picture of what we knew about Iraq. Given the nature of his "research," that sounds about right.

I've got more thoughts on this over at my blog, so I won't waste any more space here.

Bumperstickerist,

You might (not) be surprised at how small an inspection force can be mustered when the findings of the inspection might stop the gravy train that's already brought in over a billion dollars to the inspector's bosses, though I doubt that any more folks in the anti-war group will ever acknowledge the plain truth that France, Germany, Russia, and the UN were opposed to the war for strictly economic considerations. Consider, in particular, France's "military adventurism," to borrow a phrase, in places where it suits their financial interests. *cough* Ivory Coast *hack* *cough*. This sort of obtuseness from folks who can suss out a Halliburton conspiracy behind their morning latte being served cold.

Cool how you got all that credit, Ace.

For a group of CIA agents to run a covert operation against any government without the express authorization of the President... especially the government of the United States itself.

This is kind of silly. There is nothing particularly covert about a former ambassador visiting Niger and sounding out his contacts about whether Iraq was getting its hands on uranium. Not all information gathering has to be covert. And as it turns out, Wilson's qualifications were adequate for him to obtain and report the correct information--Iraq never even got close to obtaining Nigerian uranium. This was recognized by the State department, but questioned by a CIA analyst (perhaps the same one responsible for the WMD "slam dunk" assessment?)

The notion that obtaining correct information--which if heeded would have saved the US from a damaging diplomatic debacle when the claimed stores of WMDs turned out to be absent--somehow constitutes an operation against the US is ridiculous.

Don't you know that the founding fathers created the CIA with the intent for it to be the fourth branch of government? So, whenever the president chooses a foreign policy direction, the CIA will be there to offer its own policy input and to actively subvert the president's.

I mean, come on people! The founding fathers weren't stupid, they knew that eventually Bush would be president and take this country to war. So, we should all thank the CIA for hurting the GWOT and also for criminalizing politics.

Hey, Russ, you couldn't be talking about handling Joe Wilson via the "constitutional option," could you. That's the sort of ridiculous extremist talk that only leftists are allowed to spout.

The notion that obtaining correct information--which if heeded would have saved the US from a damaging diplomatic debacle when the claimed stores of WMDs turned out to be absent--somehow constitutes an operation against the US is ridiculous.

Obtaining information is what the CIA is supposed to do. The problem is that whole thing about not filing a written report with the CIA, not signing a confidentiality agreement and publishing an editorial in the country's supposed newspaper of record about your CIA mission, and riddling it with inaccuracies. See, that's really not what I expect from the CIA.

And the yellowcake question is still open, in my (and British intelligence's) opinion, Mighty Joe Wilson's tea sipping conversations notwithstanding.

And as it turns out, Wilson's qualifications were adequate for him to obtain and report the correct information--Iraq never even got close to obtaining Nigerian uranium.

At issue is whether they tried, not whether they did.

Iraq never even got close to obtaining Nigerian uranium.

And you know this..how? Because Joe Wilson says so? I remain unconvinced. Besides, the point isn't wether or not they got uranium. The point is they were trying to get uranium. Why would anyone be surprised that they were attempting this? Everyone is running around with their knickers in a twist, rightfully so, that N. Korea and Iran either have or are close to obtaining nukes. So it's a shock that a regime that had an active WMD program for years might be attempting to go nuke? There was a reason for UN weapons inspectors. The whole world believed he was violating the terms of the cease fire from the first Gulf war which prohibited him from having weapons. Another now seemingly overlooked justification for war was Saddam's refusal to report wholly on his WMD program to the UN. How much would we, all of us, be kicking the shit out of Bush had Saddam gotten nukes as did the N. Koreans (thanks Madeline Albright)?

For anyone who has been paying the slightest attention over the years the fact that there are elements of the CIA who do not walk in lock step with the president, any president, is hardly a shock. I still want to understand how you go about being in the employ of the CIA to uncover secret information and then get to write an editorial about your findings in the NYT. Exactly what is the point of having a secret agency if they can't, ya know, keep a frigging secret.

At issue is whether they tried, not whether they did.

And the only word we have for that ends up coming from some very interested parties. I'd like to know how anybody could believe that furthers the discussion at all.

Not what I expect from the CIA.

tgibbs,

You know what else is a ridiculous notion? Your belief that Joe Wilson's testimony deserves the kind of credibility necessary to change policy. I'm not saying that because he is a political hack (though he is), I'm saying it because of the substance of his report. All that Joe Wilson is qualified to claim is that the specific individuals he spoke to either had no knowledge of Iraqi attempts to purchase yellowcake, or wished to conceal the fact that they did. Everyone who can tell the difference between this and the statement that "Iraq never even got close to obtaining Nigerian uranium" please step forward. (Not so fast, tgibbs).

You shitbags are so far gone in loony land it has become amusing. The Nigerian documents were obvious forgeries; Italian intelligence service WARNED the US that they were forgeries; no fissionable WMD's or precursor materials were ever found; the yellowcake stories were created and stovepiped from an Italian neo-fascist (their definition, not mine) directly to Doug Feith's OSP in Dod, thus circumventing normal CIA review.

Bush and Cheney lied about nuclear WMD danger repreatedly, Bush lied to Congress during his SOTUS, an illegal act, and you idiots want to go after the guy who made the correct call. Priceless.

Ring me up when Bush's poll numbers hit 20%, so I can warm up the Motorola for the impeachment hearings.

Hey, Robert! How you doing? Well, I hope.

Now fuck off and let the adults talk, douchebag.

Spongeworthy,

To riff a little on your comments about the CIA, I keep hearing these comments about Plame from people who are not part of the CIA along the lines of "we knew she worked for the CIA, but we didn't know she had covert status." WTF!!!! As Will Ferrell put it, "I feel like I'm taking crazy pills!" Do we seriously have covert agents running around about whom it is publicly known that they work for the CIA but it is not known that they are covert? If so, I think I've got an idea as to why our intelligence community keeps failing us (9/11, WMD): they're a bunch of f'n morons!

Yoohoo! Mister Lewis! The forged documents turned up LONG after Joe Wilson's trip, and he never saw them. He lied about seeing them, and later 'fessed up. The documents have no part in this.

Can this be the attract libs so we can flame them thread? Please?

The Nigerian documents were obvious forgeries; Italian intelligence service WARNED the US that they were forgeries

Aha - it's Super-Strawman!! Since none of us (including Bush in the 2003 SotU) has ever based anything we've said on the forged Nigerien documents (it's 'ien' not 'ian'), this is irrelevant.

no fissionable WMD's or precursor materials were ever found

Super-Strawman descends once more, ready to fight truth, justice, and the American way!! As mentioned repeatedly above, we're talking about Iraq's efforts to *seek* uranium.

the yellowcake stories were created and stovepiped from an Italian neo-fascist (their definition, not mine) directly to Doug Feith's OSP in Dod

Ever-vigilant, Super-Strawman leaps up, ready to deflect logic and divert rational inquiry!! Since the SotU and all of our claims have been based on British intelligence, this matters how, exactly?

Bush lied to Congress during his SOTUS, an illegal act

What *exactly* did he say that was a lie? As far as I can tell, your entire post is composed of lies and diversions. Pretty foul work.

My theory on why the CIA sent him is simple, as Valerie said, "he was going anyway" and she saw this as a way to get the taxpayers to pay for his trip. Everything else was the result of giving a nepotistic favor to an irrational blowhard. Thats what the CIA is trying to cover up.

My question is, was the part of the CIA that was the only group in the world saying Saddam had no WMDs the same group that said that India, Pakistan, Iran, North Korea and Lybia had no WMD programs?

I love the bitter disappointment on the left.

Is that wrong of me?

Damn, Robert Lewis is one dense bitch, repeating the same cosplay alternative reality splooge he posted on worst.stunt.ever. (WSE).

Remeber this:

“The CIA has said that Plame did not send Wilson on the mission. You choose to believe a State Dept. guy who attended a meeting at CIA and said he assumed Plame was responsible. I'm not sure that makes him the most qualified…”

Ok, that thingy I linked to was a Senate report on prewar intelligence. Sorry for that crazy link earlier, here’s an easier one: http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf

The Wash Post gives a summary here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

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. Yesterday's report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched "yellowcake" uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.
The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him.
Plame's role could be significant in an ongoing investigation into whether a crime was committed when her name and employment were disclosed to reporters last summer.

The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.
The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] 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." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.
Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger. "

During the revelations of the Clinton Era, we would see evidence suggesting some rather incredible possibilities. My first instincts then would be to discount them as too fantastic to be beleived. I was almost always proved wrong.

Do I think that there may be an active attempt at undermining administration policies? I do now.

Some other Cosplay democrat on WSE revealed his ignorance on what the fuck was happening in the real world by arguing that Wilson was sent to bunk or debunk document forgeries:

He stated:
"Wilson went and identified the document as a cheap forgery."

The response being:
Where in his report does he say that?

In his NYT's essay, he writes:

"While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.) "

So, it seems that his mission was not as a document analyzer, and furthermore that that suspect document was not the basis for W's SotU address.

However, the CIA found that his oral report did not add to the general understanding of the issue, and in fact lent credibility to the claims.

The goof also wrote: "Bush went ahead and used this cheap forgery as exhibit A in his case for war, against the advice of the CIA"

Bush actually said "“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” "

This claim was not based on the forged documents or US sources, but on allied sources who still stand beside the reports. You have the senate report linked to earlier that supports that, as well as the Butler report,

Butler Report: "It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible."

Robert Lewis also charms us:

"and you idiots want to go after the guy who made the correct call. "

First:
What did JW actually say, at any point, "the correct call?"

Second, the WashPost poll's population basis for the latest Bush rating is based upon a 51% Dem. core sample. Doesn't help too much with the credibility.

Third, even if everything you say is true about the NOC plame and so on, doesn't the president have it within his power to "out" whatever classified information he wants in order to further his agenda? I used the information about JFK talking about missiles in Cuba, those images were classified, yet he used them anyway.

"It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible."

Horse hockey. They went for the sweet tea.

Jack, you mean the sweet mint tea. Simple sweet tea is for crap.

Can fewer than 100 inspectors in-country determine whether Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?

100 inspectors couldn't determine if Miami had WMD hidden somewhere in its city limits even if they were given 50 years to search.

when's the big flame hootnanny? tonight?

Flame hootnanny?

Oh, that's going to come back to bite you on the ass when the flame wars start.

100 inspectors couldn't determine if Miami had WMD hidden somewhere in its city limits even if they were given 50 years to search.

The inspectors said Saddam had no WMD's.

The US, with it's President's domestic and foreign credibility on the line, and over 100,000 boots on the ground, hasn't found any WMD's.

Who was right?

They just found the labs, scientists and some Uranium, apparently. But no finished WMDs.

The inspectors said Saddam had no WMD's.

But the inspectors couldn't tell us where the WMDs that were to have been destroyed were. And Saddam was playing a shell game with the inspectors. This was also the time where all foreigners in Iraq had Iraqi 'guides' who went everywhere with them (ensuring no surprises for Saddam).

Did the inspectors really give anybody any confidence?

wouldn't that be 200,000 boots on the ground?

Your constant obsession with finding something wrong with Wilson, while you completely ignore the gaping holes in the *sets* of excuses put forth by the Bush Administration, is like staring at gnats with a microscope while attempting to swallow a camel.

At least I didn't see any claims this time, that Wilson said Cheney sent him personally. Since Wilson never said that, and that's been pointed out ad infinitum, I hope that meme's finally been taking off the resuscitator.

It's like this:

Bush already knew, going into the speech, that the connection of Saddam to Africa was faulty. But he still needed to scare the crap out of the US, so he could have support to invade Iraq.

So he included 16 words that weaselly shifted responsibility onto the British, for information the CIA wouldn't stand behind.

Wilson then pointed out that from his own first-hand experience, this was total bunk.

The Uranium mines are kept under very heavy surveillance, and every aspect of them is supervised by international representatives. From all accounts it's practically impossible to get uranium out of them, without someone in the government knowing. These are the people Wilson met with.

And history has proven Wilson right.

But somehow you still stand behind this lying president. Why is that? Aren't you getting tired of blaming the messenger, and making excuses for presidents who are supposed to be grown men?

"The forged documents turned up LONG after Joe Wilson's trip, and he never saw them. He lied about seeing them, and later 'fessed up. The documents have no part in this."

Not true. The forged documents were around before Wilson's trip. Sismi first tried to get them to the CIA in October, 2001. Wilson went to Niger in Feb. 2002. They were shopped around to several foreign intelligence agencies who rewrote and redistributed them to give the appearance that multiple sources had confirmed the information. Wilson's findings were confirmed by the deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford and the U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick.

The real question is if the WHIG not only misused what they knew to be shoddy intelligence , but actually manufactured it.

I hope the link to Fineman's piece was supposed to be sarcastic, deep throat. Pure partisan hackery at its best.

See, here's how mule-headed I am: I'm still not willing to cede that "we" were wrong on the whole "Iraq WMD" issue, and won't be until we've had plenty of time to sift through the post-invasion ruins of what was formerly Assad's Syria.

la la la, make believe, Jim

"Wilson then pointed out that from his own first-hand experience, this was total bunk."

His oral report was seen by the intelligence community as reinforcing their earlier assessments. He also had no WMD experience.

If her were a real CIA employee, he would not be allowed to put himself into the policy debate. Luckily, the CIA forgot to impose that requirement on him as a condition for his employment.

So, one more time: Where did Wilson tell the truth? Give us an honest to God citation. You can go to WSE and find the link I give to his NYT's article, or you can google around to find some more recent interviews.

Secondly, we had a lot of law professors in earlier chats, talking about how its extra super illegal to mention classified information. So where are they now with this question: Doesn't the president have the power to unclassify something, as it were, if he thought it necessary?

But the inspectors couldn't tell us where the WMDs that were to have been destroyed were.

Not their job. Would've been nice, sure. But all they had to do was verify that there were no WMD's. Which they did.

And Saddam was playing a shell game with the inspectors.

No, that was the allegation. IF he was playing a shell game, then they WMD's would have been found by now.

This was also the time where all foreigners in Iraq had Iraqi 'guides' who went everywhere with them (ensuring no surprises for Saddam).

And still, with Saddam out of power and the US military having full access to his papers, his ministries, his personnel, and his former country, and no WMD's have been found.

Did the inspectors really give anybody any confidence?

They gave everyone confidence, who chose to listen to them.

At best, the Bush administration chose not to listen to them, because the inspectors weren't telling the Bush administration what they wanted to believe.

Not true. The forged documents were around before Wilson's trip. Sismi first tried to get them to the CIA in October, 2001. Wilson went to Niger in Feb. 2002. They were shopped around to several foreign intelligence agencies who rewrote and redistributed them to give the appearance that multiple sources had confirmed the information. Wilson's findings were confirmed by the deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford and the U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick.

And then I became a fairy princess and went to a magical land of unicorns and rainbows and soft, cuddly teddy bears with giant happy faces.

That's one hell of a conspiracy theory you're shopping around there. Too bad even Joe fucking Wilson doesn't even agree with your timeline, as he's admitted he "misspoke" when asked about seeing those documents.

Take your masturbatory fantasies elsewhere, dipshit.

Not true. The forged documents were around before Wilson's trip. Sismi first tried to get them to the CIA in October, 2001. Wilson went to Niger in Feb. 2002. They were shopped around to several foreign intelligence agencies who rewrote and redistributed them to give the appearance that multiple sources had confirmed the information. Wilson's findings were confirmed by the deputy commander of U.S. Armed Forces Europe, Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford and the U.S. Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick.

Who the hell are you, really, Mary f'in Mapes or something? You can't just make shit up anymore. Sorry.

Not their job. Would've been nice, sure. But all they had to do was verify that there were no WMD's. Which they did.

In a stunning display of ignorance, Jim forgets that the UN inspectors were not searching for WMD (as was trumpeted broadly back in 2002 - 2003), but were solely there to witness the destruction of Saddam's WMD stockpiles. Over and over they said that it was not their mission to 'search' for anything - they were merely documenting the deactivation of sites and the destruction of weapons an materials. As they themselves said, they didn't have the manpower to 'search' for anything.

No, that was the allegation.

We have testimony from Iraqi scientists saying they played a shell game with the inspectors. Why? I can't say - but the game was played.

They gave everyone confidence, who chose to listen to them.

Well, they gave me no confidence. Of course, I actually remember what they said.

"Joe fucking Wilson doesn't even agree with your timeline, as he's admitted he "misspoke" when asked about seeing those documents."
Edward R. Murrow

Wilson doesn't have to see a document for it to have existed. The stationary that the forgeries were on was stolen from the Niger embassy in Rome in 1999 or 2000.

"You can't just make shit up anymore."
Rocketeer

I'll leave the fiction to Rush. My dates come from that liberal bastion the Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/217wnmrb.asp

"Joe fucking Wilson doesn't even agree with your timeline, as he's admitted he "misspoke" when asked about seeing those documents."
Edward R. Murrow

Wilson doesn't have to see a document for it to have existed. The stationary that the forgeries were on was stolen from the Niger embassy in Rome in 1999 or 2000.

"You can't just make shit up anymore."
Rocketeer

I'll leave the fiction to Rush. My dates come from that liberal bastion the Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/217wnmrb.asp

Whoa. I've walked into tin foil hat central. These must be some of the 35% and shrinking of the American public who still support the Chimperor. I need to take a shower.

His oral report was seen by the intelligence community as reinforcing their earlier assessments.

Are you referring to the results of his 1999 trip, or 2002? Either way, a separate issue. Also irrelevant, he's now been proven right.

He also had no WMD experience.

Previous experience travelling to Africa under similar circumstances, with the question of purchasing of uranium as one of many questiosn on the table.

Besides, once again, Wilson was proven right.

If her were a real CIA employee, he would not be allowed to put himself into the policy debate.

Did you mean 'he'? If so, get your facts straight. He was *not* a CIA employee, and he has never claimed to be one. He went at the *request* of the CIA, in a manner 'discrete but by no means secret', as he said in his original Times Op-Ed.

So, one more time: Where did Wilson tell the truth? Give us an honest to God citation.

OK - from Wilson's NYTimes Op-Ed:

...It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

...Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission.

There you have it.

How has his conclusion been proven a lie?

Furthermore, if he didn't actually say that in his report, it would be beyond easy for the Bush administration to a) pull and show on of those four documents, or b) show that they don't exist, and Wilson is lying.

Certainly easier than outing Wilson's wife.

Yet they took the low road. Why is that, do you think?

Secondly, we had a lot of law professors in earlier chats, talking about how its extra super illegal to mention classified information. So where are they now with this question: Doesn't the president have the power to unclassify something, as it were, if he thought it necessary?

If you're talking about Plame, are you admitting that Bush knew Plame's identity, and willingly broke the law?

Because Bush certainly *didn't* declassify the info first. His administration just let loose with it.

In any case, Bush *may* have the legal right to declassify anything he wants - but that doesn't make it legal, moral or even prudent to just blab anything at any time. Declassification gives people time to minimize damage, tie up loose ends. If Bush could have declassified Plame's identity first, and didn't, that only makes him *more* culpable.

Perhaps he could have declassified it. If he had, Libby wouldn't be facing a trial, and Rove wouldn't be still facing the possibility of indictment.

Strange points, but I guess they make sense if there were only one document in question and only one country in Africa.
Bush actually said "“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” " Or, I guess if Wilson had access to it.

So, non CIA agent, non WMD expert and non-having-viewed-the-documents-he-claimed-to-have-seen Joe Wilson somehow has the expertise to not only talk about Nigeria, but all of Africa and of every document that maybe related to the British Government and its investigations?

Remember, the Daily Show and Tina Fey are the fake news. That goes double for the Weekly Standard.

Omigod -- the inspectors couldn't find the nonexistent WMD's. Wherever can they have been? - Wait - what's that- maybe they're up Edward Murrows capacious asshole.

Incidentally, in the runup to the war, an awful lot of moonbats were saying that if we didn't find WMD's in Iraq, Bushco would certainly plant some to avoid embarrassment. Does the Chimperor not get a little eentsy, weentsy credit here?

You people who are calling for the dissolution of the CIA may be right, but for the wrong reasons. The CIA has long been a tool for the far-right neocon agenda. I think the problem you have with them is that they faught back when Bush pushed them too far. He damaged their credibility by blaming them for intelligence that was cooked up in the Office of Special Plans, an Orwellian propaganda wing of the Defense Department. The CIA was never meant to be a rubber-stamp for decietful policy makers.

The CIA was never meant to be a rubber-stamp for decietful policy makers.

They were never meant to play out their agenda in the op-ed page of the New York Times, either. (Pff! Far right neocon agenda! Slap me, Gladys!)

In a stunning display of ignorance...

Whatever. Time for work.

What did the inspectors say? No WMD's. Or stockpiles or active weapons development programs.

What was the lynchpin of the Iraq Invasion marketing campaign? WMD's.

How many WMD's did the Bush administration find? Zero.

We have testimony from Iraqi scientists saying they played a shell game with the inspectors. Why? I can't say - but the game was played.

We have testimony from other Iraqis, high up in Saddam's gov't, that Iraq abandoned it's WMD program in the late 90's.

Who was right?

You're willing to believe what some Iraqis say, without evidence; and not what other Iraqis have said, with evidence. Why is that?

Well, they gave me no confidence. Of course, I actually remember what they said.

You seem to remember a rather convenient version of what they said. But let's say that you remember what they said exactly right; all those who 'heard them wrong', thought there were no WMD's.

Who was right?

Why do dumbass Donks think "neocon" is some sort of insult? Do they have the slightest idea what the word actually means?

I’m going to skip around the numerous piles of moonbat poo on this thread—dammit, if these people can’t supply their own pooper scoopers and baggies, they shouldn’t be allowed in!—and focus on Ace’s main point: the CIA is in dire need of a high-profile investigation. Mark Steyn has a column up dealing with the issue(no link because of questionable content in the URL), and as usual, it’s good stuff. Here’s Steyn quoting himself from 2003, on Wilson’s fact-finding/tea-sampling Niger junket:

If the Company knew it was a joke all along, that’s a worse problem. It means Mr Bush is in the same position with the CIA as General Musharraf is with Pakistan’s ISI: when he makes a routine request, he has to figure out whether they’re going to use it to try and set him up.

"A tool for the far-right neocon agenda"?? WTF?

I don't know which CIA you're thinking about, but the one in the real world is a huge believer in political Realism, appeasing dictators, and stability at all costs. That is to say, the precise opposite of neoconservatism.

By the way, before you call neoconservatives the "far right," recall that most of them used to be Democrats.

How has his conclusion been proven a lie?

There are several issues I have with Wilson's op-ed:

1) his editorial begins: Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq? This rest of the article tries to answer this question 'yes,' even though nothing Wilson says directly contradicts Bush's infamous '16 words' statement. Is that dishonest? Absolutely.

2) He overstates the significance of his contribution to the Niger story. While he admits that nothing he did or found was earth-shattering, he believes that his little report alone was sufficient to convince the administration that the British intelligence reports should be discarded. This is an error of hubris, which I believe is also the reason he wrote the op-ed in the first place.

3) Finally, all of his 'research' into the means of acquiring uranium were confined to legal procedures. Since it was illegal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq, all of his findings were irrelevant. A little CIA tradecraft would have been handy in assessing the security of the arrangements and the likelihood that uranium could be sold without IAEA cognizance.

We have testimony from other Iraqis, high up in Saddam's gov't, that Iraq abandoned it's WMD program in the late 90's.

Who was right?

You're conflating pre-invasion testimony with post-invasion testimony. Kind of goes with your focus on hindsight.

"How has his conclusion been proven a lie?"

Well, in everyway possible. We have the Senate's report to start with.

His "report" was found to either be inconclusive or actually support the understanding that Iraq had approached African countries to buy stuff.

(page 443): Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.

SENATE INTELLIGENCE REPORT (page 73): Conclusion 13: 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 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal,

Then you have the Butler report which contradicts what he wrote.

And then there is wilson:

WILSON (letter to the Intelligence Committee): "My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself “a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs.”...I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur"

“For Example, When Asked How He ‘Knew’ That The Intelligence Community Had Rejected The Possibility Of A Niger-Iraq Uranium Deal, As He Wrote In His Book, He Told [Senate Intelligence] Committee Staff That His Assertion May Have Involved ‘A Little Literary Flair.’” (Matthew Continetti, “‘A Little Literary Flair,’” The Weekly Standard, 7/26/04)

Thanks to powerline and Daily Howler et al.

Could someone get the page number of Wilson's book that admits that there was an Iraqi delegation looking into buying stuff. I read that back in the day, but I lost that cite.

What was the lynchpin of the Iraq Invasion marketing campaign? WMD's.

False. The lynchpin of the campaign was to take out a dictator who refused to follow the UN sanctions of the first Gulf War. Again, UN SANCTIONS. This was not some arbitrary "gee what country shall we avoid today cause I'm bored stunt." The terms of the cease fire which Saddam agreed to required him to prove that he had destroyed the stockpile of WMD's he already acknowledged he had. Got that? He admitted that he had WMD's. He then repeatedly thumbed his nose at the UN and refused to provide the documentation that he had destroyed them. Bush repeatedly and publicly warned him that he was in violation of the cease fire agreement and that if he did not meet one last and final deadline, hostilities would resume, with or without the UN's blessing. Saddam, probably believing that the billions he was doling out through the Oil for Food debacle to various French and Russian (among others) gov't and business interests would protect him, chose to ignore the warning. He chose poorly.

I will agree that the Bush administration has done a terrible job of reminding people of the justification for the war. They have allowed people who never supported this war and never would even if we had found an ICBM w/ a nuclear payload targeted at NYC to frame the debate as a war strictly as a hunt for WMD's.

As to the famous 16 words, that speech was vetted repeatedly by, yup you guessed it, the CIA. The very same agency that first told the Bush administration that they believed Saddam was seeking to aquire nuclear capability. They gave their blessing to use the words. If you haven't seen this reported its because your not looking or spending far to much time in DU.

So there you have it. If you are absolutley convinced that someone lied us into this war, your wrath should be aimed at the CIA. You know, Joe Wilson's employer.

"You can't just make shit up anymore."
Rocketeer

I'll leave the fiction to Rush. My dates come from that liberal bastion the Weekly Standard.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/217wnmrb.asp

That's not the part you just made up, and you know it. Nice try though.

The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa


Yeah right, the same British government whose "dossier" on WMDs consisted of a decade-old thesis copied from the internets, complete with grammatical errors. Read the Downing Street Memo.

I can't understand, in a post-9-11 world, why the sketchy information interested party Joe Wilson brought back from interested parties in Niger should have caused us all to breathe a sigh of relief and decamp from Iraq's borders whistling happy tunes.

If the complaint is that the evidence that sent Wilson to Niger was too sketchy itself to use in the SOTU, you may rest easy. It was not used. And none of our "guests" have told us how exactly WIlson can be said to have debunked British intel.

Just because he turned out to be right--if that can even be said--doesn't mean he gave us anything you'd want to bet lives upon. Quite the opposite IMO.

The internets, indeed. You tickle me, Elmo.

Read the Downing Street Memo.

I think you mean "Debunked Downing Street Memo."

Not that I expect intellectual honesty from you or anything.

Look, Utron, when we designed this country, it was to make sure that the minority party would still have power. And it was also to ensure that tool of the president's foreign policy could override the president, as long as a temp employee disagreed with the president's version of events.

So, you and other neo-con wingnuts need to be watching out for the brave, patriotic Americans who are serving this country by betraying it.

Seriously, I guess this post does have some function other than as a continuing lecture on the Plame Myth. This is a subject that the MSM is ill suited to even present, let alone discuss. Bush maybe needs to push the limits of his power when it comes to firing the mid-levels of the CIA and the State Dept.

My biggest question is where the black helicopter sightings fit into the Wilson cabaal.

Keep weaving those conspiracy theories, fellas. None of them can mask the profound incompetence of the Bush administration.

If you stupid ass-cracks would slow the fuck down and actually make the case that the Bushies were incompetent rather than evil liars, you'd probably have won a few of us to your point.

But I guess screaming "Fuckups!" doesn't get the moonbats selling their bikes to kick in to the moveon cashbucket, does it? They've got to be evil liars so you lie yourselves and wonder why the rest of us ignore your dumb ass.

Liberals minds are clouded with estrogen, which is like giving crack to monkeys.

Damn. Type the words "Joe Wilson" and the lefty trolls come fluttering like a moth to a flame.

Where were all these trolls when Ace posted an extensive list of quotes from Democrats about Iraq having WMDs?

Where were all these trolls when Ace posted an extensive list of quotes from Democrats about Iraq having WMDs?

Hard to type in the comments box when your eyes are closed, your fingers are in your ears, and you're yelling "LALALALALALALALALALALALALA" at the top of your lungs.

Look, Utron, when we designed this country, it was to make sure that the minority party would still have power.

FUCKING TROLLISH MORON! READ THE CONSTITUTION!

There were no parties when this country was formed, and the Constitution has no real place or SAY on them.
Properly Kerry should be the veep per the orginal Constitution. And there was/is not attempt to ensure the minority party still has power (you've confused us with Italy and the rest of the parilimentary systems).
This LIMITED, mostly POWERLESS federal government was intended to ensure that the POPULACE maintained their freedoms despite the majority.

Fucking Christ, did the special ed kids get out early?

It honestly confounds me that libs are hanging their wet dreams of toppling the evil Bushco on Joe "Is That Camera On?" Wilson. Fitzmas came and went and all they got was a shitty little "scooter", so they trot a proven liar back out to try and claim with a straight face that Bush lied when all the Big Dimwit Senators saw the exact same intelligence that Bush saw and...voted to remove Saddam in 2002 just like Clinton and Gore wanted to do in 1998.

Bush will be out of office in about three years. Question for all you reflexive moonbats: do you really want the electorate to believe that your this stupid? Or another question: even if by your wildest orgasmic dreams you somehow got rid of Bush before '09, do you really want Cheney in the WH? Can you even clear your deluded minds long enough to think ahead past, oh, maybe three minute from now?

My apologies, Joeindc44- I should have looked at the byline and realized you were being satarical (i hope)

When you got idjits claiming that the weapons inspectors weren't there to verify Saddams destruction of WMDs (Despite that beign what he signed onto in the ceasefire!) or that Lyin Joe WIlson never worked for the CIA (So who paid for his fucking trip in the first place), it gets frustrating.

And then they drag out the DSM. Its the same disproven arguments from 1~2 years ago! They just go into hibernation, ignore any of the new revalations and make the same wild monkeyass claims every year.

Shrill.

Damn Howard!
You gots some explosive cluebat on you!
:)
I enjoy making fun of crazy as much as the next guy. I was being silly, of course. BTW, did you know that in England they use words differently than we do here? Its true.

Fags are something you smoke there, Boots are where you put things in your car and fix is what you do to your bayonet on the rifle. You put it into place. This may come in useful when the next memo comes out, Fitzmas Phase III, where they accuse someone of being gay for smoking a cig.

So, anyway, where are those weapons of mass destruction for which we wasted all these lives?

The importance of the law against revealing the true professional identity of an agent is advertised by the draconian punishment, under the federal code, for violating it. In the swirl of the Libby affair, one loses sight of the real offense, and it becomes almost inapprehensible what it is that Cheney/Libby/Rove got themselves into. But the sacredness of the law against betraying a clandestine soldier of the republic cannot be slighted.

-- William F. Buckley

There are several issues I have with Wilson's op-ed:

1) his editorial begins: Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?...Is that dishonest? Absolutely.

That's an issue you have - but you accused Wilson of LYING. Therefore, show that he lied, in his statements about Saddam attempting to get yellowcake.

2) He overstates the significance of his contribution to the Niger story....

Once again, that's your opinion. And it isn't even central to whether or not he was right, about Saddam obtaining yellowcake from Africa.

3) Finally, all of his 'research' into the means of acquiring uranium were confined to legal procedures.... A little CIA tradecraft would have been handy...

Maybe so, maybe not. But you still have yet to show how Wilson lied.

You're conflating pre-invasion testimony with post-invasion testimony. Kind of goes with your focus on hindsight.

Except that I'm not. I'm talking about pre-invasion testimony, too.

So, once again, who was right?

Why do you continue to make excuses for an administration that was AT BEST criminally incompetent and negligent?

The big lie in the op-ed, of course, was the omission of any evidence that would have supported the '16 words' - i.e., the ex-official's recollection that an Iraqi approached him to discuss expanding economic trade (taken to mean yellowcake), the other points above were, as I said, my personal problems with the op-ed. The other Wilson lies came after the op-ed.

Why do you continue to make excuses for an administration that was AT BEST criminally incompetent and negligent?

If that's what you want to talk about, that's fine. But the discussion normally centers on 'Bush lied' or 'Bush manipulated the intelligence' or 'Joe Wilson is a selfless hero.' None of which are true, based on the available evidence.

"That's not the part you just made up, and you know it. Nice try though."
Posted by: on November 4, 2005 01:12 PM

What the hell are you talking about? Someone said the forged documents did not exist before Wilson's trip. As has been reported in many outlets, they certainly did. They were the original source for the whole accusation that Wilson went to confirm.

There are two very interesting questions: 1) Who actually forged the documents? Rocco Martino got them to Gen. Nicolò Pollari, but who actually created them (badly) from the stationary stolen from the Nigerian embassy in Rome (by a 60 year old female embassy employee who was also a Sismi asset)?
2) Why is Stephen J. Hadley issuing Clintonian non-denial denials about accepting the forgeries from Pollari at a meeting on Sept. 9, 2002?

False. The lynchpin of the campaign was to take out a dictator who refused to follow the UN sanctions of the first Gulf War.

Oh, really.

So, Cheny, Rice et al going onto talk shows, talkingabout WMD's, mushroom clouds, and biological weapons; and Colin Powell going before the UN to push the Bush administration's embarassingly thin case before the world; and the 16 words in the Bush speech in question - that was all a minor side issue.

The Bush administrations really convinced Americans to send their sons to die, because Saddam didn't file some paper at the UN on time.

Do you really believe that?

And what were the sanctions about, that you present to excuse Bush's failure to find WMD's? Why, the sanctions involved - WMD's!

Again, UN SANCTIONS....The terms of the cease fire which Saddam agreed to required him to prove that he had destroyed the stockpile of WMD's he already acknowledged he had. Got that? He admitted that he had WMD's.

Uh-huh. And then, under the pressure of sanctions and weapons inspectors, he DESTROYED THEM.

He then repeatedly thumbed his nose at the UN and refused to provide the documentation that he had destroyed them.

Uh-huh - except that he let weapons inspectors into his country, showed them all the documentation that he had, and no WMD's were found.

And then Bush invaded, and with full access to the country, Saddam's files, and Saddam's former employees, and, well, Saddam - they still found nothing.

Boy, Saddam sure thumbed his nose.

Bush repeatedly and publicly warned him that he was in violation of the cease fire agreement and that if he did not meet one last and final deadline, hostilities would resume, with or without the UN's blessing.

Uh-huh. Except that he was not in violation of the cease fire agreement in any way, and the weapons inspectors were still inspecting - and had to pull out of Iraq in order to avoid being bombed by the US.

I will agree that the Bush administration has done a terrible job of reminding people of the justification for the war. ..

I disagree. I think the Bush administration has done the best job they can to make people FORGET the justifications for the war. He and his crew have tried to weasel from one rationale to another, and not one sticks. But they just move the goalposts again.

As to the famous 16 words, that speech was vetted repeatedly by, yup you guessed it, the CIA. The very same agency that first told the Bush administration that they believed Saddam was seeking to aquire nuclear capability.

And Bush sure put the pressure on, to make sure that he was getting the right information, didn't he?

Not. He heard what he wanted to believe.

They gave their blessing to use the words. If you haven't seen this reported its because your not looking or spending far to much time in DU.

No, wrong again. I've heard that reported. I just think it's a pathetic excuse not worthy of a man. Is Bush a man or not? Did he stand by those words, did his staff investigate them fully, or not?

Somehow we've been led into a war that has killed over 2000 soldiers, maimed another 15,000 for life, cost well over $200 billion, split us from our allies, and *increased* worldwide terrorism [from the State Department's own figures] - and no WMD's.

But somehow, through the magic of punditry, no one in the Bush administration is to blame, for things that the Bush administration did.

So there you have it. If you are absolutley convinced that someone lied us into this war, your wrath should be aimed at the CIA. You know, Joe Wilson's employer.

And who does the CIA report to? Why, the President.

But tell you what - let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was all the CIA's fault, then. What did Bush do? Why, he gave Tenet a Medal of Freedom. For presiding over 3 of the largest intelligence failures in US history.

"How come you're so wrong, my sweet neo-con? / You call yourself a Christian, I call you a hypocrite / You call yourself a patriot. Well, I think you are full of shit!"

--a refrain from the Rolling Stones new album

If that's what you want to talk about, that's fine. But the discussion normally centers on 'Bush lied' or 'Bush manipulated the intelligence' or 'Joe Wilson is a selfless hero.' None of which are true, based on the available evidence.

I think it's kind of both. I think the Bush administration definitely massaged the intelligence to support their desire to invade. I think it's hard to deny that Bush Jr. clearly had a chip on his shoulder about Iraq, going back to his father with the previous Gulf War.

But I also think they were genuinely surprised when they found no WMD's. That's the frightening thing about the Bush administration.

They were so sure that Saddam had WMD's, that they felt any information to the contrary simply wasn't credible. They convinced themselves, and built their case, and any analysts who brought them any different information felt the weight of scorn and disapproval.

I also don't think Wilson has done anything wrong, but I also think it doesn't matter if Wilson is an axe murderer.

a) Was he right, in that Saddam was not actively trying to get Uranium? He was.

b) even if he was wrong, why out his wife? why not just show the evidence that he was wrong?

That's how it breaks down, to me.

Jim,

Brevity is the soul of wit.
Thanks for proving the truth of that old adage.

I'm with Jim. But the problem is - he's trying to argue logically with wingnuts who wouldn't admit Bush was an axe murderer if they saw him chop off Laura's head and splatter them with her blood.

Let's see - Joe and Valerie Wilson were supposed to know a year before the war that Bush was going to go to war with Iraq so they set up this boondogle trip with the CIA's help so they (the Wilsons) could embarrass Bush when Bush tried to use phony information that Wilson hadn't even seen when he took his all-expense paid vacation to the tropical paradise of Niger. Is that the right timeline?

Amazing what powers of prescience you think we liberals have!

You folks may wonder why we call you wingnuts - It's because you're all NUTS!

You know, the thing about Jim is not that he is living in an alternate universe where fitzmas II is right around the corner. He is one of these guys who will repeat himself silly, ignorant of everything already said or understood. Log Cabin, at least he summarized his points at the end of another long post where he dispatches everyone else's points with the simple, yet ineffective technique of say "na-uhn"

To wit, "Was he right, in that Saddam was not actively trying to get Uranium? He was." Fuck it, I am only gonna cut and paste Senate reports and other intel briefs so many times. So, here, Jim, is my response "Did too"

Second, "even if he was wrong, why out his wife? why not just show the evidence that he was wrong?"

The outing, the violent birth-like process was Libby telling reporters, "don't get too far in front on this, Wilson's not to be trusted, plus his wife got him the gig." Since Jim refused to participate in the was she or wasn't she debate, what else can you say, even the Wash Post said maybe the white house's motives weren't to get Plame kilt.

Some other poster monkey got it right, we invaded Iraq because they did not play ball. Saddam thought we were bluffing with all those UN resolutions and from the last time we used force against him. We thought he was doing something bad. He thought he was doing something bad. And the only thing we found after we invaded were the scientists, the labs, spare parts, raw materials, terrorists and terrorist training grounds.

Why debate with people who are fundamentally dishonest about the events behind the run up to the war in Iraq?

The leftist trolls who spin their lies here think they can rewrite history. They cannot.

It is a fact that almost every prominent Democrat made the same claims regarding WMDs in Iraq as the Bush administration.

It is also a fact Bush received congressional authorization to use military action against Sadaam Hussein.

The trolls can claim that the whole case for the war the argument that Hussein had WMDs, but they can't erase the record.

Congress based its authorization for military action against Saddam Hussein on many issues, only one of which was WMDs.

Other issues include Iraq's support of terrorism, concerns about Iraq's pursuit of a nuclear program, it's violation of the Gulf War cease fire agreement, and Hussein's attempt to have the elder President Bush assassinated.

It's all on record. Democrats looked at the same intelligence as President Bush and came to the same conclusion. Any honest person who thinks this war is a mistake should be as upset with Democrats as with President Bush, and would want to hold them equally responsible.

Of course, we're not dealing with honest people. We're dealing with partisans who manufacture outrage and feign concern for our troops in order to damage an administration that advances a political agenda with which they disagree.

an oldie, but goodie:

I am glad that Buckley was able to get to the bottom of everything before Fitzmas was, although they seem to have come to different conclusions.

Any port in a storm, I always say!

Did old Bucky ever establish that Plame was an active covert op agent?

Joe Wilson

" I never claimed to have “debunked” the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have occurred and did not occur"

Wilson's trip to Niger took place in February 2002, some eight months before the U.S. government received the phony Iraq-Niger documents in October 2002. So it is not possible, as he told the Washington Post, that he advised the CIA that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong." And it is not possible, as Wilson claimed to the New York Times, that he debunked the documents as forgeries.

Slightly OT: Libby pleaded not guilty and his attorney has requested a jury trial. I can hardly wait for the defense to start calling all the sundried media folk to the stand, i.e., Miller, Novak, Cooper. The shrill 1st Amendment op-eds from the NYT and WaPo practically write themselves.

Let's play ball!

a) Was he right, in that Saddam was not actively trying to get Uranium? He was.

The Brits still say Saddam was seeking a source of uranium. Based on sources that predate the forged documents.

b) even if he was wrong, why out his wife? why not just show the evidence that he was wrong?

It's not clear that they were aware that her job was classified (the WaPo's lame article about the "SECRET" paragraph should be disregarded since it proves nothing). Noting that his wife got him the job was a means of showing how low-level his investigation was, and of distancing his report from the White House.

Do you really believe that?

Yea. I really, really believe that. What exactly did you expect Bush to do at the UN? Ask them to grow a pair and enforce their own sanctions? They hadn't done it for a decade, what makes you think they were about to be swayed this time? What makes you think they were going to crush the cash machine that was the Oil for Food scam (see Report, Volker, Paul).

File some paper? Are you nuts? It was over a decade. It wasn't a frigging book report. It was verification that he actually HAD destroyed his WMD's. He never filed it. He did not allow the inspectors unfettered access to inspect no matter how much you hold your breath, stomp your feet and insist he did. A silly little thing like the facts prove you wrong. Do you not remember the UN actually pulling the inspectors for lack of cooperation? Or did that tidbit escape you. You seem to think that Saddam got rid of his WMD's simply cause he said so. I choose not to believe him.

Uh-huh. Except that he was not in violation of the cease fire agreement in any way, and the weapons inspectors were still inspecting - and had to pull out of Iraq in order to avoid being bombed by the US.

I'm sorry this is just a stupid statement. It goes to the fact that you have not a clue about what you are saying. He was in violation in the ways I have just stated. He was also firing almost daily on coalition planes, those planes flown by our pilots you mention. Aside from just sorta kinda being against the sanctions its also an act of war. You can look it up.

And Bush sure put the pressure on, to make sure that he was getting the right information, didn't he?

Not. He heard what he wanted to believe.

How the hell do you know? Did Kos tell you? How do you know Bush only wanted to hear news that would send us to war? When you have actual proof of this let me know. Until then its just your punditry and speculation which doesn't add up to a warm bucket of piss.

No, wrong again. I've heard that reported. I just think it's a pathetic excuse not worthy of a man. Is Bush a man or not? Did he stand by those words, did his staff investigate them fully, or not?

Um, are you off your meds? Exactly who do you think his "staff" is in matters of international intelligence gathering? Let me clue you in. The acronym starts with a C and ends with an A.

But somehow, through the magic of punditry, no one in the Bush administration is to blame, for things that the Bush administration did.

Who said so? I think the post war rebuilding has not gone all that well. I think many things could have and should have been done better. The left does not have a monopoly for on sympathy and regret for the lose of life and the injured. I know you don't see or care about the progress being made in Iraq, like free elections, a constitution, etc., but progress is being made nevertheless. I'd say Bush deserves some measure of credit for that. You?

But tell you what - let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was all the CIA's fault, then. What did Bush do? Why, he gave Tenet a Medal of Freedom. For presiding over 3 of the largest intelligence failures in US history.

Yep. And then he got rid of him. Take your gold watch and be on your way Mr. Tenet. Personally, I wish he had never kept Clinton's CIA man but at least he's gone now. And with him gone, a major realignment of the CIA is now underway. Did you miss that too? And I'm sorry, I have a hard time equating the dispute over wether Saddam had gotten WMD's or already had them with such intelligence failures as Pearl Harbor or the ascent of the Nazis.

As to making up with our *allies* I'm sure there will be time for that. Just as soon as France stops burning.

Why debate with people who are fundamentally dishonest about the events behind the run up to the war in Iraq?

You're absolutely right.

The leftist trolls who spin their lies...

OK, there you lost me.

It is a fact that almost every prominent Democrat made the same claims regarding WMDs in Iraq as the Bush administration.

Who gave them the evidence they based this on? The White House.

They trusted Bush. They shouldn't have, but they did. And now we're all paying the price for it.

How does this proves me and other 'leftists' wrong?

It is also a fact Bush received congressional authorization to use military action against Sadaam Hussein.

Uh-huh. With the understanding that it would be used only as a last resort.

Instead, we invaded when we didn't need to.

Congress based its authorization for military action against Saddam Hussein on many issues, only one of which was WMDs.

Other issues include Iraq's support of terrorism,

The Bush admin's exaggerated claims of which, have been debunked; and which also involves WMD's;

concerns about Iraq's pursuit of a nuclear program,

that's not WMD's? Huh? Doesn't matter, it was debunked too,

it's violation of the Gulf War cease fire agreement,

Which was a treaty regarding WMD's. Oh, and Saddam also was not in violation of it, but Bush invaded anyway,

and Hussein's attempt to have the elder President Bush assassinated.

The first thing you mentioned that doesn't involve WMD's.

An alleged attempted assassination of 8 years ago or so (at the time), by a contained tinpot dictator with no WMD's, and so weakened militarily that he doesn't even control all of his own country - that is not worth the lives of 2,000 + US soldiers.

If that was accepted as a rationale by the Congress, then they were definitely wrong.

It's all on record. Democrats looked at the same intelligence as President Bush and came to the same conclusion.

NO, they did NOT! Jesus. Bush and his administration picked the information that they wanted to use, to support their case; and that's the information that the Senate and Congress saw!

The CIA reports to the President. The Pentagon reports to the Secretary of Defense, who reports to the President.

Any honest person who thinks this war is a mistake should be as upset with Democrats as with President Bush, and would want to hold them equally responsible.

I'm upset with the Democrats for trusting Bush so much - but it's Bush and his administration who pushed this war, and who made the decision to invade.

Let's not pass the buck off Bush's desk. He was in charge, he wanted the war, he pushed for the war, he invaded when it seemed like he might not get his war - he's responsible.

Of course, we're not dealing with honest people. We're dealing with partisans who manufacture outrage and feign concern for our troops in order to damage an administration that advances a political agenda with which they disagree.

Once again, I'm in agreement with you. I just disagree that those people you mention, are necessarily 'the Leftists'.

Realistically, that description perfectly fits the Bush administration.

Omigod -- the inspectors couldn't find the nonexistent WMD's. Wherever can they have been? - Wait - what's that- maybe they're up Edward Murrows capacious asshole.

Oooh...someone sounds jealous. Sorry, buddy, the only way you're getting a piece of this squeakhole is if you're a doctor doing a test. And even then, you'd have to knock my ass out with some serious drugs first.

Nice try, though. But you've got to smooth talk me a little more.

So, uh, Jim. I guess Valerie Plame was no longer considered covert in 2002 when she got her husband a job for which he did not have to sign a secrecy agreement?

Is that the point you are making in your stuttering list of points you wish were true?

Wait, so Joe Wilson was right about the Niger thing? Er I thought the party line was that he was a liar, uh even though he was right. And uh therefore the outing of an undercover agent in war time wasn't treason so much as uh...shoot I need some more Kool Aid so I can say this with a straight face. Darn reality and its liberal bias.

No, actually, I think Jim was explaining what part of the outing process actually broke some law, or something. Or whatever it was that made this discussion worthwhile.

Or he was explaining why he and Cindy Sheehan now oppose the war, or always did, or only did, but not now, but then.

Maybe I was wrong, maybe he is such a staid believer in the Plame mythiverse that he refuses to discuss the intricacies of his view of the myth. Its too simple:

Joe Wilson told the truth. Bravely. (see, I cut and pasted his paragraph!)

And Bush outed his wife. His covert wife.

To punish him. By outing her.

How dare you question that?

Looks like you fellows have the Saddam-lovers under control here. Carry on.

Yea. I really, really believe that. What exactly did you expect Bush to do at the UN? Ask them to grow a pair ...what makes you think they were about to be swayed this time?....Oil for Food scam (see Report, Volker, Paul).

Sigh.

OK. We each have our view of events, and we're each sure we're right about reality.

The UN and the rest of the world, were sure enough that Saddam had no WMD's, posed no active threat to his neighbors, and had no credible terrorist connections worthy of military action.

Bush chose to invade.

He found no WMD's, and no terrorist connections to Al Qaeda that even approach Pakistan's or Saudi Arabia's. Meanwhile worldwide terrorism has increased, almost certainly because of the Iraq invasion.

That's reality.

A silly little thing like the facts prove you wrong.

Oh ,really?

Where are those WMD's again?

Do you not remember the UN actually pulling the inspectors for lack of cooperation?

Uh-huh. And I remember them also going back in, and finding no WMD's.

You seem to think that Saddam got rid of his WMD's simply cause he said so.

No, I think Saddam got rid of his WMD's - BECAUSE WE FOUND NO WMD'S.

I choose not to believe him.

You choOse to believe Bush instead, over the consistent negative reports of the inspectors - and the fact that no WMD's have been found!!!

You seem to think it was a good idea that Bush chose to invade before the inspectors finished their job.

You struggle mightily to ignore that the other nations, and the weapons inspectors working on their (and our) behalf, found no weaons - and Bush was sure their were weapons - and Bush was wrong.

Wait, so Joe Wilson was right about the Niger thing? Er I thought the party line was that he was a liar, uh even though he was right. And uh therefore the outing of an undercover agent in war time wasn't treason so much as uh...shoot I need some more Kool Aid so I can say this with a straight face. Darn reality and its liberal bias.

That's some fine reasoning you've got there, you grabasstic piece of amphibian shit!

Don't hurt yourself thinking too hard! That would break my fucking heart!

NOW DROP AND GIVE ME TWENTY!

I'm done.

I now return you to your somehow-happy alternate universe where Saddam Hussein had ammassed weapons of mass destruction, took part in 9/11, and Bush had every justifiable reason to invade; and America is safer because of it.

There's bridges for sale in Brooklyn. FYI.

There's bridges for sale in Brooklyn. FYI.

Nice to see you ending with the originality we've come to expect from your posts.

yup, he is in dreamwold with this one:
"The UN and the rest of the world, were sure enough that Saddam had no WMD's, posed no active threat to his neighbors, and had no credible terrorist connections worthy of military action."

That is not how it went down, especially with us using foreign intel sources. But who cares, I don't want to go down that road to crazyville with you.

The only thing we found after we invaded were the scientists, the labs, spare parts, raw materials, terrorists and terrorist training grounds. His no credible terrorist connections included luminaries like the killer of Leon Klinghoffer and the clerk who helped PLO cash suicide bomber $25K checks. But who cares, I am no Hitchens and even he is getting exasperated with the impenetrability of some to any details outside of the Iraq was a kite flying wonderland.

I guess you were using what Joe Wilson also used when describing his assertions, some literary flair.

Gee, Jim. I thought the whole point was that the poor whistle blower was punished by having his wife outed.

No, wait, I thought it was because Bush said “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” "

And Wilson had proof that this was wrong.

Debunked Downing Street Memo.



Yeah right. Blair never even bothered to question the authenticy of the Downing Street Memo. If you're dumb enough to believe what you read in tinfoil hat wingnut web sites you must certainly belong to the 35% who will think Dumbya is doing a swell job no matter how badly he screws up.

At issue is whether they tried, not whether they did.

That wasn't what the question was at the time. Everybody already knew that Saddam had been trying to build a nuclear program. The question at the time was whether he had succeeded in making a deal to get Uranium from Niger (as alleged in the documents later identified as forgeries) and now posed such an imminent threat that we could not afford to take more time with inspections or to build a consensus with our allies. Remember, this was when Rice was talking about "the smoking gun being a mushroom cloud."

Everybody already knew that Saddam had been trying to build a nuclear program.

What, STILL trying to build one?!? And everybody knew it?! Man, the guy's sitting on zillions of petro-bucks, sanctions or no sanctions. We better go take that fucker out pronto.

What?

Oh.

Man, The Downing Street Memo!

Now that is some good crazy. And its topical too. It was, after all, sort of like a Fitzmas precursor. The one event that would lead to the end of Bush.

I'm not a crazy-speak anthropologist, but I know that Christopher Hitchen is, he writes:

"On a visit to Washington in the prelude to the Iraq war, some senior British officials formed the strong and correct impression that the Bush administration was bent upon an intervention. Their junior note-taker committed the literary and political solecism of saying that intelligence findings and "facts" were being "fixed" around this policy.

Well, if that doesn't prove it, I don't know what does. We apparently have an administration that can, on the word of a British clerk, "fix" not just findings but also "facts." Never mind for now that the English employ the word "fix" in a slightly different way—a better term might have been "organized.""

Nice to see you ending with the originality we've come to expect from your posts.

It's a shame; I had a real great closing quip, but I left it with the WMD's. You know, me and Saddam had a couple of drinks, and then things got kind of crazy.

Anyway, I'm sure Bush'll find it soon.

Never mind for now that the English employ the word "fix" in a slightly different way—a better term might have been "organized.""

Like Don Corleone, I just keep getting dragged back in here.

Is it better that the Bush administration was organizing facts, around the decision that it had *already made* to invade?

Shouldn't policies come *from* facts?

That interpretation doesn't make the Bush administration look good. That only makes them look less bad, if at all.

Jim the Liar continues to spin.

Bush and his administration picked the information that they wanted to use, to support their case; and that's the information that the Senate and Congress saw!

The CIA reports to the President. The Pentagon reports to the Secretary of Defense, who reports to the President.

Congress has intelligence oversight. The Intelligence Oversight Act of 1980 requires intelligence agencies to keep congressional oversight committees “fully and currently informed” of their activities including “any significant anticipated intelligence activity.”

Democrats had every opportunity to question the evidence presented The simple fact is that they looked at the same evidence that the Bush administration looked at and came to the same conclusions about WMD, just like almost every other intelligence service in the world.

(Congress authorized military action in Iraq) With the understanding that it would be used only as a last resort.

Subjective determination. The criteria for authorization of military action was stated as reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead
to enforcement of all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq

If Democrats had some more objective criteria in mind, they should have written it into the authorization. As is stands, Bush determined that diplomacy wasn't working.

(the cease fire aggreement) was a treaty regarding WMD's. Oh, and Saddam also was not in violation of it, but Bush invaded anyway,

Congress felt otherwise. As they stated:

Whereas Iraq, in direct and flagrant violation of the cease-fire, attempted to thwart the efforts of weapons inspectors to identify and destroy Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction stockpiles and
development capabilities, which finally resulted in the withdrawal of inspectors from Iraq on October 31, 1998;

WMD's or not, Hussein would not allow inspectors to do their jobs. This violated the cease fire agreement.

Spin it all you like, Liar Jim. It's on the record. You cannot change history no matter how much you type on this blog or any other.

Good one, Jim. Policy makers shouldn't organize their facts, or something. There are so many ways one can stick their fingers in their ears and hmmm loudly.

Its odd that you choose this string to refight the fight over the Iraq war. I guess that because, except for the scientists, labs, raw materials, terrorists, terrorist training grounds, the support of foreign terrorists and general bad news Saddam was for his own people, there were no actual working WMDs found.

True enough, but there is a more appropriate thread where we list all the different people who agreed with the President (Clinton or Bush) about how Iraq had a program and was developing and how we should do something about it. And its more than true that many people are truly surprised, not the least of whom is Saddam himself. Some people speculate that he was lied to by his own people. Otherwise, he shoulda backed down (interest coup theory there, Joe. He was set up by his own people...).

The response to this thread has generally been, "any Democrat who supported this line of reasoning was duped by Bush!" These quotes from Dems and lefties go back to 1998, so maybe there's a footnote in the DSM that can account for all that.

So, yay! No wmd's. Too bad there is a long, diverse list of people who thought there was.

U.S. government received the phony Iraq-Niger documents in October 2002. So it is not possible, as he told the Washington Post, that he advised the CIA that "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."
Posted by: on November 4, 2005 04:05 PM

October 2002 is when they were accepted and passed around the official Washington intelligance groups. Greg Thielmann, former director of the US Department of State's intelligence bureau, had the report on his desk on October 15, 2001. The fake break-in, where the items used to forge the documents were taken, happened over New Years eve 2000/2001.

Jim, you don't have to come back.
But just like all of your lefty pals, you feel the need to set everyone straight, to enlighten us all with your knowledge.
Thank Gaia that you're hear to show us the true path, to grace us with your wisdom, to heal us scarred children.
Thank you, dear leader.
Ohhmmmmm.
Ohhmmmmm.

I am trying to google up on Greg Thielmann. Man, I hope Bush didn't also out this guy's wife. He hates the administration more than Wilson. Or does he? I can't tell, and this is so ancillaryto do much more research.

Anyway, interesting stuff. It really takes me to the crazier parts of the web. Good thing for everyone involved that this one forgery was not the sole basis for assertions that were made.

Hitchens had some insight: "The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors. The bogus document produced by an Italian con man in October 2002, which has caused such embarrassment, was therefore more like a forgery than a fake: It was a fabricated version of a true bill."

wow, the hackery over here @ the Ace O'Spades continues

"Why wasn't a trained and competent CIA weapons expert sent on this mission?"

Because they didn't have a CIA expert who was buddy buddy with current/former Niger gov't officials & people in the uranium industry.

Wilson, who helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council during Clinton's tenure, was very buddy buddy with these people.

Its irritating when people don't bother to read multiple news sources to get all the facts together.

It's a shame; I had a real great closing quip, but I left it with the WMD's. You know, me and Saddam had a couple of drinks, and then things got kind of crazy.

I gotta tell ya. Jim...he's a great guy..

Like a Viking.

I now return you to your somehow-happy alternate universe where Saddam Hussein had ammassed weapons of mass destruction, took part in 9/11, and Bush had every justifiable reason to invade; and America is safer because of it.

Thank you.

Testing Testing.
This is a test of the Karl Rove FAX Machine talking points memo.

From the American Conservative:

The possible forgery of the information by Defense Department employees would explain the viciousness of the attack on Valerie Plame and her husband. Wilson, when he denounced the forgeries in the New York Times in July 2003, turned an issue in which there was little public interest into something much bigger. The investigation continues, but the campaign against this lone detractor suggests that the administration was concerned about something far weightier than his critical op-ed.
_____________________________________________________

Philip Giraldi, a former CIA Officer, is a partner in Cannistraro Associates, an international security consultancy.

http://www.amconmag.com/2005/2005_11_07/feature.html

Wilson, who helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council during Clinton's tenure, was very buddy buddy with these people.

Its irritating when people don't bother to read multiple news sources to get all the facts together.

Well file this under no shit. It's not that this was an unknown, its that in my mind it actually help discredit your man Joe even more. Are you really trying to put up someone, anyone, on Clinton's foreign policy team as someone who's wisdom we should trust? The adminstration of multi-culturalism and group hug? The administration who's crafty policy gave us a nuclear N. Korea? Who allowed radical Islam to take root and helped tinpot dictators like Saddam become emboldened by his feckless foreign policy? Who systematically ignored the threats brewing in the Middle East and punted to the UN leaving the giant steaming pile of shit we are now faced with? Who's singular "legacy" in the Middle East was bringing Arafat out of exile and reigniting the Intifada? I don't care how buddy buddy Wilson is with these people. Do you honestly think that a country whose dominant export is uranium, would admit that they were even talking with a regime prohibited by international law from obtaining uraniuim....about ANYTHING?

Its like your an idiot savant without the savant part. Here's some reading for you. Go read the senate intelligence committe report on pre-war intelligence published last year. Stop focusing on one, by your own admission, highly paritsan Clinton hack. He is a pimple. The bi-partisan senate intelligence committe concluded as much. They also concluded that rather than debunk the theory, his "evidence" actually served to bolster the CIA case. They also concluded that evidence was NOT cooked. They had the same briefings, the same evidence as the White House. They came to a far different conclusion than you despite their claims of ignorance now.

Try reading the report with what little objectivity you can muster. Try not to get to caught up in the cover your ass/blame bushhitlerhaliburtonmcchimpey lets throw a hissy fit and shut down the senate bullshit thats going on now. Read the facts before you attempt to lecture. Your points might then have some relevance.

By the way, is France still on fire? Just asking.

Yes, all those Democrats who agreed with Bush that Hussein had WMDs were DUPED!

Duped by the Chimperor. Duped by George Dumbya, the guy that says nuc-you-lur.

And that John Kerry? So smart! So very, very smart! Hillary, too.

'Cept for when they're getting duped by the guy that lefties say isn't smart enough to tie his own shoelaces.

How do leftists keep all their conflicting beliefs straight? Is this what drives them to be moonbarking crazy or did they start that way?

"How do leftists keep all their conflicting beliefs straight?"

Didn't Orwell have a word for that? I haven't read 1984 since right around 1984, so I forget...

Doublethink! That's it.

Hmmm...Sum Guy seems like my kind of people.

Looks like jim's not the only one that's going to see my "Oh Face."

Oh...oh...oh...

Hi all,

Can anyone tell me why this issue matters, when Iraq already had 500 tons of yellowcake, and why getting more wouldn't have made any difference in its weapons capability?

Can anyone tell me why you’re talking about the CIA doing the President’s bidding, when it is clearly the VICE PRESIDENT that was demanding the “right” answer about the Niger claims?

If you know the answers to the above questions, then surely you can think of a reason why the CIA would have realized the absurdity of the Vice President’s questions, which Joe Wilson could answer without being a WMD expert.

If you read Joe Wilson’s public letter in response to the (Pat Robert’s) Senate Intelligence report, then you also know why most of the comments above are ignorant and ill-informed.

So, can anyone tell me why the right keeps harping on idiotic questions? Why the right is SOFT on TREASON and NATIONAL SECURITY? Can anyone tell me if Joe Wilson being a serial baby rapist would make it okay to reveal classified information?

And some random questions:
Can anyone tell me how it is that about half the country is ready to impeach Bush, when the MSM hasn't even MENTIONED the possibility?

Can anyone tell me why you don’t hear much about the UN oil-for-food scandal since the actual REPORT came out?

Can anyone tell me what the GAO report said about vote fraud in Ohio, Nov. 2004?

Well file this under no shit. It's not that this was an unknown, its that in my mind it actually help discredit your man Joe even more. Are you really trying to put up someone, anyone, on Clinton's foreign policy team as someone who's wisdom we should trust? The adminstration of multi-culturalism and group hug?

Actually, Wilson served as an ambassador under George Bush Sr., and was kept on by Clinton. As acting ambassador to Iraq at the time of the first Gulf War, he defied Sadam Hussein by giving refuge to more than 100 US citizens at the embassy and in the homes of US diplomats - at a time when Saddam Hussein was threatening to execute anyone who harboured foreigners.

He then addressed journalists wearing a hangman's noose instead of a necktie. He later told the Washington Post newspaper that the message to Saddam Hussein was: "If you want to execute me, I'll bring my own [expletive] rope."

Wingnuts? Moonbats? You're all a bunch of dumbasses. This coming from an independant that thought, and still thinks, Bush is incompetent.

Joe Wilson is neither here nor there, doesn't matter, except for retards who actually believed there were WMD's, which seems to be most people, including the ones posting here.

You don't deserve to vote if you were duped by a moron. Those that chuckled under their breath and got the war they wanted? Your character is revealed, you shouldn't be allowed to breed, let alone vote. Want to get that right back? Here you go, put your money where your mouth is.

You know what I hate? I hate when I forget to put in the " " around the URLs, and then they don't work...

FIXED this time...,

Can anyone tell me why this issue matters, when Iraq already had 500 tons of yellowcake, and why getting more wouldn't have made any difference in its weapons capability?

Can anyone tell me why the sheer logistics of getting a significant amount of ore out of Niger and into Iraq could not be done secretly in a country as poor as Niger?

Can anyone tell me why you’re talking about the CIA doing the President’s bidding, when it is clearly the VICE PRESIDENT that was demanding the “right” answer about the Niger claims?

If you know the answers to the above questions, then surely you can think of a reason why the CIA would have realized the absurdity of the Vice President’s questions, which Joe Wilson could answer without being a WMD expert.

If you read Joe Wilson’s public letter in response to the (Pat Robert’s) Senate Intelligence report, then you also know why most of the comments above are ignorant and ill-informed.

So, can anyone tell me why the right keeps harping on idiotic questions? Why the right is SOFT on TREASON and NATIONAL SECURITY? Can anyone tell me if Joe Wilson being a serial baby rapist would make it okay to reveal classified information?

And some random questions:
Can anyone tell me how it is that about half the country is ready to impeach Bush, when the MSM hasn't even MENTIONED the possibility?

Can anyone tell me why you don’t hear much about the UN oil-for-food scandal since the actual REPORT came out?

Can anyone tell me what the GAO report said about vote fraud in Ohio, Nov. 2004?

Hey weasel, if you want to make another bet, I think we could agree on one.

This time I would be willing to take the long odds. Possible topics:

Rove's indictment
Bush's impeachment
Cheney's resignation/indictment/???

Just how much could Joe POSSIBLY accomplish during his lone week in Niger?

About 30 hookers, a case of JD, and a couple of ounces of blow if he was really hitting it hard.

He is after all a professional diplomat. They're used to sacrificing their bodies for the vatterland.

Wilson was correct:

DUELFER REPORT

http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap4.html

ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material—activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program.

So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down.

Tubino,

Your links were more credible the first time around.

, except for retards who actually believed there were WMD's, which seems to be most people, including the ones posting here.

....and the entire leadership of the Democratic party. I just covered this. While I do realize that your brother's balls slapping against your chin must cause some distraction, it really is important that you at least try to keep up with the rest of the class, colon.

Saddam already had hundreds of tons of yellowcake uranium? Why did he need that?

Warden, try to get this.

The Repubs didn't just push the existence of WMD in Iraq, but the existense of a credible threat against the US by Iraq. Mushroom cloud.

That is how this admin pushed the US into war -- on lies.

The Dem leadership did NOT all buy that.

Also, the belief in the existence in WMD in Iraq was built on pre-INSPECTORS-on-the-ground intelligence. Once Bush had the UN inspectors on the ground, he could have let them do their work.

Instead, as the UN inspectors were debunking US claims, Bush stopped it cold.

There, that wasn't hard, was it?

Saddam already had hundreds of tons of yellowcake uranium? Why did he need that?

How about asking what he was able to DO with it? Answer: in more than 10 years, exactly nothing, because he did not possess the technology.

So why would he seek more? People who follow this stuff knew that the Niger claim made no sense. Cheney wanted his answer, though, so the CIA went through the motions.

Now some want to blame Wilson for being asked a stupid question by Cheney. They want to blame Wilson for having a question so easy to answer -- if the truth was adequate.

The truth was not adequate for Cheney, Hadley, and the WHIGs. The stuff coming out about the Niger forgeries still doesn't quite show how and why the WHIGs managed to keep getting the debunked info into reports, etc, but they did.

We need Phase II investigation, and Harry Reid was right to pull a stunt to call attn to this.

Saddam already had hundreds of tons of yellowcake uranium? Why did he need that?

Like the many other countries with the stuff, it was purportedly for peaceful nuclear power. There is no dispute over the fact that Saddam had had a nuclear program at one point. The question at the time of Wilson's trip was whether it had been shut down, as he claimed (and as UN investigations seemed to support), or whether Iraq was so close to production of nuclear weapons that a preemptive invasion was justified, as the Bush administration claimed.

Yellowcake is of course a long way from a bomb. The hard part is purifying it (remember those aluminum tubes?). So merely possessing yellowcake is not much of a threat by itself.

Did Karl Rove tell the truth to the President back when the leak investigation started?

In which case the President has been lying all along?

Or did Karl Rove lie to the President back when the leak investigation started, in which case the President has been a chump and empty suit all along?

And Cheney has been running a shadow govt all along, in which the National Security Council had to quit sending each other emails due to the SPYING going on by the Veep's office?

Best laugh of the day: the WaPo reports that Bush has ordered staffers to attend an ethics refresher course.

I can't stop laughing.

Can anyone tell me why this issue matters, when Iraq already had 500 tons of yellowcake, and why getting more wouldn't have made any difference in its weapons capability?

And that clearly would have made him less of a threat. Riiiiight. Your 1st link is pretty useless and the second just says "most" of his known stores were located after we invaded. IIRC, those known stores had been enough to produce one nuclear device. Good thing he had no chance of secretly reconstituting the program for bomb building.

Can anyone tell me why the sheer logistics of getting a significant amount of ore out of Niger and into Iraq could not be done secretly in a country as poor as Niger?

So there would be no significance to the attempt? Hmmmm?

Can anyone tell me why you’re talking about the CIA doing the President’s bidding, when it is clearly the VICE PRESIDENT that was demanding the “right” answer about the Niger claims?

Because it was the President's policies that were at issue. Hello? Anybody home?

surely you can think of a reason why the CIA would have realized the absurdity of the Vice President’s questions, which Joe Wilson could answer without being a WMD expert.

Right. Apparently, all it took was a few sips of sweet mint tea and politely asking officials, "Say, old chum, you weren't approached about doing something illegal, were you?"

Lost interest in your post at this point. There is a limit to how much vapid derangement I'll sit through without someone paying me for my time.

VRWC, you're talking out of your ass about what Wilson did in Niger. You don't know the first thing about the signs inevitably left by such a transfer...and you ignore the basic point: that Saddam already had more than he could use -- it was a senseless question in the first place.

Because it was the President's policies that were at issue. Hello? Anybody home?

I think it's funny that you still don't grasp the importance of having the VP's office running a foreign policy in secret, undermining the National Security Council. Try harder.

--------------
This idiotic discussion about Iraq's WMD's would benefit from reading Kevin Drum on this. It's a longer version of what I stated above, but here's a clip:

* It's true that virtually everyone believed in 2002 that Saddam had an active WMD program or, at the very least, large stockpiles of existing WMD. But the Bush administration was repeating the exact same arguments about Saddam's WMD even in March 2003, when UN inspectors had been combing Iraq with the help of U.S. intelligence for three months and had found nothing. The evidence by that time suggested just the opposite of what we originally believed, but that prompted nothing from Bush supporters except heaps of abuse aimed at Hans Blix. The invasion went off as scheduled.

* Important areas of dissent were covered up in support of the administration's marketing effort. The most spectacular, of course, involved the existence of nuclear weapons programs, which the administration sold as unequivocal fact. "We know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons," Dick Cheney said shortly before the war started. "And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."

But that wasn't true, and Cheney certainly knew it. There was virtually no serious evidence for an Iraqi nuclear program, and what little evidence there was had already been persuasively debunked. Both INR and the CIA knew that the African uranium story was bogus, and DOE experts knew that the infamous aluminum tubes were designed to be used in rockets, not as centrifuge tubes.

* Administration figures continually made sensationalistic claims in public that went well beyond what they could back up with real evidence. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud," Condoleezza Rice told Wolf Blitzer ominously a few days before Bush's UN speech in 2002. "We know where they are," Donald Rumsfeld asserted flatly about Iraqi WMD even after the war. "There's overwhelming evidence there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government," Dick Cheney said repeatedly both before and after the war. Colin Powell told the UN that Saddam's bioweapons program was active, advanced, and an absolute certainty. "These are sophisticated facilities," he said. "For example, they can produce anthrax and botulinum toxin. In fact, they can produce enough dry biological agent in a single month to kill thousands upon thousands of people."

* Even among people who believed Saddam had an active WMD program, there was little consensus that it actually posed a danger, something the administration never acknowledged. Even the CIA suspected Saddam would never use WMD unless he was attacked first, and in any case none of Saddam's weapons posed a realistic threat to the United States. The administration's absurd claims that Iraqi drones could attack the continental U.S. were debunked almost immediately by Air Force intelligence. Their dissent didn't make it into the public discourse until after the war, though.

So: Was there a widespread belief in September 2002 that Iraq had an active WMD program? Yes. Did the Bush administration nonetheless lie, exaggerate, and dissemble repeatedly about that program? Yes. Should conservatives be concerned about that? Yes. After all, the next president to market a war this way might not be a Republican. Conservatives should be as interested in learning the truth about this — and preventing it from happening again — as the rest of us.

POSTSCRIPT: You can find a more extensive description of the marketing of the war in "The First Casualty," written in June 2003 by John Judis and Spencer Ackerman. This was the article that apparently first sent Scooter Libby into hysterics and began the campaign to smear Joe Wilson and expose his wife as a CIA agent.

Its nice of Tubino to come into a thread at around post 160 and repeat everything wrong. Good luck to you guys who keep on hammering that nail down.

From what I skimmed, Joe Wilson disagreed with Bush's 16 words, yet his investigation did turn up attempts to buy yellowcake. Someone who read his book pointed this out. Anyone got that link? If not, just go to the Senate Report on PreWar Intelligence.

Everything else on this post is about how Bush misled everyone who already believed that Iraq was doing bad things. There is a whole string of quotes of people who had been saying the same thing, even before Bush was president.

I know, I know, Clinton and democrats were lying to us into a mere semi-war in 1998, they weren't actually serious.

Tubino:
"The Repubs didn't just push the existence of WMD in Iraq, but the existense of a credible threat against the US by Iraq. Mushroom cloud."

To bad the democrats echoed this line.

The Bush speech I found using mushroom cloud is in the hypothetical sense:

"If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year. And if we allow that to happen, a terrible line would be crossed. Saddam Hussein would be in a position to blackmail anyone who opposes his aggression. He would be in a position to dominate the Middle East. He would be in a position to threaten America. And Saddam Hussein would be in a position to pass nuclear technology to terrorists.

Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud. "

Did he go overboard with this?

"The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow."

Oh, wait, that president Clinton

Tubino:
"The Repubs didn't just push the existence of WMD in Iraq, but the existense of a credible threat against the US by Iraq. Mushroom cloud."

But cf.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

The intelligence which the president shared with us was in line with what we saw in the White House…
-- - Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, 2003

Again, another attempt to refight the war in a thread about Wilson and the CIA. Look, we know that you personally opposed the whole war kicking and screaming, but you lost that policy battle.

joeindc44, right on.

Its no big sin to stick your two cents in
if you know when to leave it alone,

But you went over the line
you couldn't see it was time to go home

Leave it to the dead-enders at Ace of Spades to imagine that citing a Democrat citing cherry-picked intel proves anything.

Leave it to you to ignore the difference between "threat" and "imminent threat to the US."

Leave it to you dead-enders to ignore the UN inspectors, and what the BUSH admin did when the inspections were going on.

Leave it to you to defend the betrayal of national security.

Leave it to you to ignore that Iraq would have gained no significant capability with add'l uranium oxide, and that the question was merely one that the WHIGs wanted to use as propaganda on you, to scare you -- and you still believe it.

Leave it to you to ignore Wilson's letter, and continue to cite the self-serving portion of the self-contradictory intel report -- while ignoring what Rockefeller said, and the absence of a Phase II report...

Leave it to you to ignore the real security threats posed by the current admin. Iraq really IS a security threat now!

Cheney's approval rating is 19%. How long till Bush is there too?

GASP

Why, he might lose the election!
LOL, LOL

STARVE

lauraw predictably pointed out, "Why, he might lose the election!"

Uh, no, he might be IMPEACHED. See the difference? Say it slowly, and enjoy it: immmm-peeeeeech. Wait till it becomes non-taboo in the MSM to say it, and watch those in favor grow in number. I think it's already higher than in favor of impeaching Clinton at the height of the monica madness.
-----------------------------
Picked up from Media Matters:

Newsweek's Jonathan Alter wrote this week under the headline "Is Rove a Security Risk?":

The conventional wisdom in Washington this week is that Karl Rove is out of the woods. But while an indictment against him in the Valerie Plame leak case is now unlikely, he may be in danger of losing his security clearance.

According to last week's indictment of Scooter Libby, a person identified as "Official A" held conversations with reporters about Plame's identity as an undercover CIA operative, information that was classified. News accounts subsequently confirmed that that official was Rove. Under Executive Order 12958, signed by President Clinton in 1995, such a disclosure is grounds for, at a minimum, losing access to classified information.

[...]

While the law against revealing the identity of a CIA operative requires that the perpetrator intentionally disclosed such classified information (a high standard, which may be one reason Fitzgerald did not indict on those grounds), the executive order covers "negligence," or unintentional disclosure.

[...]

The sanctions for such disclosure are contained in Section 5.7 of the executive order. That section says that "the agency head, senior agency official or other supervisory official shall, at a minimum, promptly remove the classification authority of any individual who demonstrates reckless disregard or a pattern of error in applying the classification standards of this order." Any reasonable reading of the events covered in the indictment would consider Rove's behavior "reckless." The fact that he discussed Plame's identity with reporters more than once constitutes a pattern.

Uh, no, he might be IMPEACHED

*rolls eyes*
I'm sorry I even bothered.
This guy is delusional.

Uh, no, he might be IMPEACHED. See the difference? Say it slowly, and enjoy it: immmm-peeeeeech.

How many presidents have been impeached again?

Here's a new bet for you: if Bush gets impeached, I'll go back to taking you seriously. As long as he remains unimpeached, you have to demonstrate that you have read and understood the thread you are in when you make a post. How's that?

lauraw, you might as well learn to like being slapped around for your undying support of this administration -- it's going to get worse for you over the next 2-3 years.

Meanwhile, how are we doing with the image of the US abroad?

Uh-oh, Hugo Chavez, democratically-elected with a majority Bush never dreamed of, mustered 25 THOUSAND folks in peaceful protest against Bush's so-called free trade policy (US taxpayer-subsidies for US agriculture).

From Firedoglake:

Regarding the demonstrations and melees in Buenos Aires and La Plata today - 98 percent of the Argentine population was against the invasion of Iraq. For weeks prior to the summit, there have been numerous articles and commentaries in the Argentine media regarding the deep feelings of animosity towards George W. Bush. It has not been reported in the U.S. media that Bush traveled to the summit with a retinue of 2000 (yes, two thousand) security/staff. Last week, according to the daily Clarin, 3 airplanes loaded with arms for security as well as food for the entourage arrived in Argentina Also, four AWAC spy planes are surveying the area. Sikorsky helicopters were transported to Argentina, U.S. navy ships have been deployed off the coast of Mar del Plata, all in anticipation of unrest due to the unpopularity of Bush in Argentina and in all of Latin America. The size of the Bush security detail has been a topic of articles in Argentina. It did not merit a single mention in the U.S. media. I find it incredible. One cannot help but wonder what the price tag will be for the Bush trip to Latin America.
---------------------------

Ah, the SCLM... you can always count on them.

I'm sorry I even bothered. This guy is delusional.

Ha ha. Meanwhile Geoff stolidly keeps his promise to be good.

I know it.
Now he's saying Chavez was democratically elected. Just like Fidel.

The guy is certifiable.
I will go back to letting him starve.

98 percent of the Argentine population was against the invasion of Iraq.

----

Wow. Thats higher percentage than in Iraq. Impressive. C'mon Tubby. Take a deep breath and think for a second. Are you really so simple that you believe that 98% of the Argentine population would vote for anything? That doesn't pass the smell test. If you really believe that I honestly don't know how you are smart enough to remember to breath and certainly not worth my time.

To bad the democrats echoed this line.

There was certainly grounds to think that Saddam might have WMD. He had used chemical weapons in the past, and had had a nuclear program. He claimed that it had all been dismantled, but the documentation was poor.

Some Democrats were persuaded by the presentation put on by Powell, which we now know omitted many of the doubts and reservations of intelligence analysts. Others weren't convinced, but were persuaded by the President that the President needed authorization for military action as a threat to enforce inspections, and believed the President's assurances that military action would be undertaken only as a last resort and with the full support of our allies.

"The Bush administrations really convinced Americans to send their sons to die, because Saddam didn't file some paper at the UN on time. "

Defining Saddam down. That's cute.

""But the inspectors couldn't tell us where the WMDs that were to have been destroyed were""

to which jim responded:

"Not their job. Would've been nice, sure. But all they had to do was verify that there were no WMD's. Which they did.""

Other people have surely caught this by now, but - no, Jim, that is their job. Countries which have disarmed in full cooperation with international authorities - Ukraine, South Africa - have demonstrated, through full access and *paperwork*, that they did so.

Hans Blix had it right: disarmament verification is not supposed to be an easter-egg hunt.

"Look, Utron, when we designed this country, it was to make sure that the minority party would still have power."

Again, I'm sure this was instantly shot down, but -

You don't know what you're talking about.

When this country was 'designed,' (most of) its designers hoped to avoid the formation of political parties altogether.

The Constitution has nothing to say about them. "Checks and balances"/"separation of powers" operate between branches of government, not between minority/majority parties.

That's why the "constitutional option" in the Senate, while it might be obnoxious, is perfectly, well, constitutional. If the President were attempting to force a nominee through without majority approval, that'd be a clear violation of the checks and balances.

If the Senate wants to internally change its procedural rules, that might be foolish (I certainly think it is, because it'll eventually come around to bite its implementers in the behind), that's its prerogrative.

You can make an argument that political parties have unofficially evolved to be an organic part of our system - in a limited sense, that's certainly true - but don't claim some original/constitutional intent on the matter.

Damn that deceitful Bush! What was Clinton, "omitting," when he made all those claims? Why did he sign a resolution calling for regime change in Iraq in 1998, under Clinton, if Saddam was not considered a threat? Was he deceiving all of us?

Why was the general consensus AROUND THE ENTIRE WORLD, including the U.N. that Saddam and his potential WMD's were a threat? Did Bush selectively report all that intel, as well?

Your, "Bush manipulated the intelligence in order to convince the dems," mantra is false, and tired and boring...

...As is your, "Wilson told the truth," mantra. No, he lied. He claimed he debunked the notion that Iraq Sought uranium from Africa. He did not. Period. He claims that he debunked the notion that Iraq bought uranium from Niger.

You insist that Bush lied, in the absence of proof, and in the same breath accept testimony from a proven liar, Joe Wilson. Yet we are the stupid sheeple?

"it's violation of the Gulf War cease fire agreement,

Which was a treaty regarding WMD's. "

Among other things. Whatever. You haven't actually read it, and you won't. Because you "know" what it says.

What's the point?

Don't gasp, lauraw, we all know Tubino is the craziest little cosplay democrat. By cosplay, I mean people that dress up like their favorite neutral/good elf ranger, who get together and spin fantasies about Ragnok the Troll Lord. This is no different.

Why, if the WashPost takes a poll with a population sample composing 75% leftist democrats, I am sure we can get Bush down to 20% approval. Then all we have to do is close our eyes and wish really hard, like in 1996, 1998, 2000, 2002, and 2004. 2006 will be no different, we will wake up to MSM types exclaiming something like "Angry White Males were the newest voting block to help keep the scandal plagued Republicans in office, ignoring the latest indictments of every congressman from Texas by heroic, unbiased prosecutor Ronnie Earle.

But, I digress. This is a thread about the CIA and Wilson. The common argument technique is to keep changing subjects hoping to make a point, eventually.

Thats right, the Clintons cherry picked their own data, but Wilson never saw the documents which were the basis of his NYT's article.

and believed the President's assurances that military action would be undertaken only as a last resort and with the full support of our allies.

---

Actually, no. Bush made it clear when he made the case for going to war that in his estimation Iraq represented a clear and present danger to the US both domestically and abroad. This is really the crux of the entire issue. Bush made it clear from the time of 9/11 forward that he was going to pursue a policy of pre-emption. This was a radical departure from US policy basically since our inception.

Why the change? Because our enemies have changed. We are no longer in a cold war world facing established nation states but fighting enemies who employ much more shadowy forms of asymmetric warfare, namely state sponsored terrorism. Bush made it clear in his SOTU speech after 9/11 that he was going after terrorism and counties that sponsor and harbor terrorists.

Without going down the rathole of the 9/11 hijackers, no serious analyst of Saddam's Iraq did not believe their were significant and ongoing relationships between Saddam and terrorist groups (Islamis Jihad, PLO, Hammas, Hezbolah, etc.). If you read the Senate Intelligence commitee report of last year this point was made very clear and represented a much larger part of the report than Joe Wilson. Frankly I personally don't care which organization the Islamic terrorist is part of. Their goals and methods are not something I want to exist.

WMD was but a piece of the reason for taking out Saddam. I'd wager most of the lefties arguing here know that. The real arguement is over pre-emption. We are currently fighting Islamic terrorists on the Arabian peninsula. Libya has given up her WMDs without a shot. Syria is out of Lebanon. The Taliban is mostly destroyed in Afghanistan. There has not been a single attack on US soil since 9/11 let alone the beginning of the Iraq war.

Conversely, France is burning and in danger of serious civil unrest. The Netherlands are fighing Islamic terrorists on their shore. Indonesia has attack after attack.

I continue to support pre-emption of terror sponsoring reqimes when diplomacy has run its course. I am much happier to argue with any lefty about this policy then argue about why we didn't stop another major terror attack on US soil.

opps..that was me.

Here's a nice reminder of why it's idiotic to talk about investigating Wilson and Plame.

We're still learning how Bush & Cheney and the rest lied us into this war.

Smoking Gun on Manipulation of Iraq Intelligence? 'NY Times' Cites New Document

Excerpt:

A newly declassified memo...shows that an al-Qaeda official in American custody was identified as a likely fabricator months before the Bush administration began to use his statements as the foundation for its claims that Iraq trained al-Qaeda members to use biological and chemical weapons, according to this Defense Intelligence Agency document from February 2002.
...."The document provides the earliest and strongest indication of doubts voiced by American intelligence agencies about Mr. Libi's credibility," Jehl writes. "Without mentioning him by name, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Colin L. Powell, then secretary of state, and other administration officials repeatedly cited Mr. Libi's information as 'credible' evidence that Iraq was training Al Qaeda members in the use of explosives and illicit weapons."

What was that? Did someone just take a dump?

Ace, it's time to get rid of this Canadian piece of shit.

Also, it's time to finish judging the (fake) poetry contest.

And, it's time to thank those who answered your begging for money.

Get on the ball, ACE.

Zogby poll: Majority of likely voters support considering impeachment
if Bush lied on Iraq, 51-45 percent

A majority of voters (55%) now believe Bush misled the country into war, so... let's see YOUR math.

lauraw lives in her own world: "
Now he's saying Chavez was democratically elected. Just like Fidel."

Uh, no. You're delusional, lauraw.

A presidential election was held in the Republic of Venezuela on 6 December 1998.

In this election, Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías was elected to his first term as President of Venezuela with the largest percentage of the popular vote (56.2%) in four decades

Wanna take it back, lauraw, or do you prefer your own delusions?

This is TOO EASY. The only fun now is watching the dead-enders wriggle.

Anyone else ready to take a bet on Karl Rove's future?

Anyone?

Movie review time!
Batman Begins. More like Batman Begins to Annoy Me.

How many times can we recycle this behind-the-times, bad-idea for a superhero?

The film actually makes a decent attempt to answer some oft-asked questions like Why a bat-man? and Where does Bruce Wayne get all those nifty gadgets?

Action is good, acting is good, writing is good. Nothing great in this movie which obviously borrowed storylines from other good movies to create the Bat-Man. In other words, it's Batman meets The Last Samurai meets The Phantom Menace meets Deuce Bigalow.

Very interesting, tubino.

The poll is still 10% leaning towards Dems, but its still a lot of crazy. Maybe years of negative press coverage has run its course. Maybe America will have to accept millions Iraqi boat families as we flee from Iraq, Iraq becoming a Sharia state.

You got an interesting link of how an Al Qaeda guy in 2002 was the smoking gun. Too bad everyone knows that Iraq never ever work or talked to Iraq. Luckily, there was evidence that supported the administration and the previous administration assertions that Iraq was bad and trying to acquire WMDs.

I think you are still way too far over in fantasy land though. But, since the press refuses to do anything but count dead soldiers and report nothing but Dem accustations, this could hit near mainstream status. Would it ever lead to a vote in the House, I wouldn't think so at this point. Basically because the RNC would play every Kerry, Clinton and Clinton sound bite from the days when the DNC pretended to care about national security.

But, since Wilson never saw the documents on which he based his NYT's article, and that his actual oral report was read to have supported the administration's version of events, blah blah blah...

Forgot to point out that Chavez is protesting the US insistence on ag subsidies.

The socialist Chavez wants fair trade.

The self-proclaimed free trader (Bush) insists on corporate welfare and protectionism.

Betcha lauraw tosses conserv principles to support Bush over the Chavez position.

Seriously, did one of you eat beans for dinner or something?

OK, last time Geoff, I SWEAR.

Tiny tube, you flyspeck, Chavez is pissed about US AG SUBSIDIES.

He is firmly against FREE TRADE BETWEEN LATIN AMERICA AND THE US.

Any ass can do a google search and see who is right and who is wrong here.

People; google, then hit news, then search 'chavez free trade.' And see what a fucking piss poor excuse for a troll tiny tube is.

AND THAT IS THE LAST TIME I TALK TO YOU.
YOU FUCKING MORON WHO IS BENEATH MY INTELLIGENCE.

If you want any action out of me in the future, you better change your name and M.O.

*end of entertaining this particular troll*

Have I missed anything? I mean, it sure seemed like tooberino vanished for a few days after Fitzmas. Take that long to turn the tears of disappointment into hope for tomorrow, perhaps?

I swear, the little cockring will be crowing about Bush's pending impeachment in 2010.

Bart,

So the Batman movie annoys you because it is good without being great?

I pity the woman (or boy or goat) that slept with you last.

Cheers!

McCain vows torture ban in Senate bills

WASHINGTON - Girding for a potential fight with the Bush Administration, supporters of a ban on torture of prisoners of war by U.S. interrogators threatened yesterday to include the prohibition in nearly every bill the Senate considers until it becomes law.

http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051105/NEWS09/511050431

Is this the extension to flame thread?
Oh, I get it. The Agent is a really big fan of the Batman.

I'll admit I have a bias against Batman. You see, back in 1989 I saw Tim Burton's Batman and to this day I'm still upset that I sat through that entire stoopid movie.

Batman Begins annoys me because the Batman saga is growing long in the tooth. How many times does this fucker in tights need to be re-invented?

Today, I caught a few minutes of The Hulk on television. So glad I didn't go to see that pile of crap. Haven't seen either of the Spiderman movies, either.

You insist that Bush lied, in the absence of proof, and in the same breath accept testimony from a proven liar, Joe Wilson. Yet we are the stupid sheeple?

I'd prefer to believe that Bush lied, because I'm more comfortable with dishonesty in a president than incompetence. But I simply can't believe that if the Administration knew that WMD was a fraud from the outset that they wouldn't have arranged to "find" WMD stocks in Iraq. .

On the other hand, there is even less evidence that Wilson lied. After all, everything Wilson said turned out to be true--Iraq never even got close to making a deal for Nigerian uranium, and the documents that alleged otherwise turned out to be fraudulent. Even Wilson's inference that Rove was involved in the outing of his wife--despite an explicit denial by the White House--turned out to be correct.

How many times does this fucker in tights need to be re-invented?

At least this once. The movie was very good in its own right. The Burton stuff was transitionally good in moving the character's portrayal from Adam West to something that was being taken seriously, even if it was only in Burton's cartoon-world.

Sure, the bit about poisoning the whole city was over the top, but the rest was pretty good. Given the iconic figure of the past 70 years, the movie did a great job of rationalizing what he has been. I read Ace's perceptive review and pretty much agreed except for his objection to the gliding cape bit.

The movie had to explain why a human being would go to such lengths and then justify how the story had had played out in comic book mythology. Capes always strick me as a stupid thing to bring to a fight. The movie explained it in acceptable terms. Having done a few street fights in my misspent youth, nothing short of gliding (which negated the whole absurd "bat-rope" nonsense) would have done.

Yes, Hulk sucked. Mostly because it was oriented around CGI and a psychologically inaccessable main character. As with the comic, Spiderman works fine as long as you incorporate an adolescent's world view into your suspension of disbelief. (For some reason, I found that easier to give up just because Bruce Campbell had a cameo.) So what?

Batman has the much more difficult job of telling a facially absurd story of how a mature adult would come to dress up -- like a bat -- and fight crime -- without firepower but with highly advanced substitutes. Those are the facts you have to work with when you do the first and last draft of the script. It worked plausibly and that is a major accomplishment.

In the end, the movie incorporated the most difficult challenges of the character and rose to give him an actual psychological depth. I have to acknowledge the accomplishment. I also enjoyed the story.

If you think his tights could have been tighter, there are a couple of earlier Batman movies I can refer you to.

The thing I try to remember about tubby is that he has always been paid to talk. He was graded on cleverness and got his credentials from fellow travelers who could not have cared less about whether what he said had any objective application in the real world. Facts are just something you can bury with footnotes if they are inconvenient.

I used to be one of these useful idiots until the Sovs fell. That was a gut check for intellectual honesty. Reagan called the shot on the USSR from back in the 70's, when everybody on the right and left were disagreeing with him. And then he sank the eight ball. He called the shot on the economy, too. And I mocked him every step of the way on all of it.

But things played out exactly as he said they would. He was right. I was wrong. The "amiable dunce" had seen what I hadn't and what everyone else had said was an illusion. I reevaluated in the face of that empiricism while the people around me struggled to patch the ship they had been floating on. They patched with caveats and revisions and citations to obscurity. But they were patching.

Bitter as it was back then, intellectual honesty demanded that we concede. Reagan was right. We had been wrong. Few were able to acknowledge it and I think that is the point where the cognitive dissonace of the left began. That was the point where "political correctness" in our country became important. Before that, everything was possible. After, there were things that "enlightened" people could not say.

For the most part, the fall of the USSR was their 9/11. The difference is that they lost what they fought for, not what they fought against.

I'm not saying that anyone needs to indulge tubby in his political Art Bell moments. Just have a little compassion for where he is coming from.

OK, last time Geoff, I SWEAR.

I feel your pain. But I'll tell you, the withdrawal symptoms are trivial.

lauraw manages a stunning contradiction-affirmation in just a few words:

Tiny tube, you flyspeck, Chavez is pissed about US AG SUBSIDIES.

Yes, that is exactly what I said.

He is firmly against FREE TRADE BETWEEN LATIN AMERICA AND THE US.

Sweetie, sugarplum...

if the US insists in subsidizing its own agricultural production, then ...

IT ISN'T FREE TRADE!!!!

Good gawd, can someone spell this out for her? The US is insisting on having the exception to the free-market rule, in its own favor, to use US tax dollars to prop up its own ag industry so that it doesn't have to compete in the real world market.

The Central and South American countries are thus shut out from competing fairly on products like sugar. What Chavez and the rest want are to compete fairly, and they do not want a treaty that codifies an unfair trade pact -- even if that treaty is CALLED a free trade treaty.

So you have the facts right, but then you simply refuse to notice that ag subsidies are NOT compatible with FREE MARKET principles.

I can't make it any simpler.

What next, you'll try to claim that lumber tariffs and steel tariffs are also signs of Bush's embrace of free market principles???

Long, but ON TOPIC. Here is Joe Wilson's letter, rebutting the claims of the report some of you live by. Make sure you get to the part starting like this: The "additional comments" also assert: "The Committee found that, for most analysts the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal." In fact, the body of the Senate report suggests the exact opposite...
-------------------------------
Source

Joseph C. Wilson, IV

July 15, 2004

The Honorable Pat Roberts
Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

The Honorable Jay Rockefeller
Vice Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

Dear Senator Roberts and Senator Rockefeller,

I read with great surprise and consternation the Niger portion of Senators Roberts, Bond and Hatch "additional comments to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee's Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Assessment on Iraq. I am taking this opportunity to clarify some of the issues raised in these comments.

First conclusion: "The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador's wife, a CIA employee."

That is not true. The conclusion is apparently based on one anodyne quote from a memo Valerie Plame, my wife sent to her superiors that says "my husband has good relations with the PM (prime minister) 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." There is no suggestion or recommendation in that statement that I be sent on the trip. Indeed it is little more than a recitation of my contacts and bona fides. The conclusion is reinforced by comments in the body of the report that a CPD reports officer stated the "the former ambassador's wife `offered up his name'" (page 39) and a State Department Intelligence and Research officer that the "meeting was `apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch him to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue."

In fact, Valerie was not in the meeting at which the subject of my trip was raised. Neither was the CPD Reports officer. After having escorted me into the room, she departed the meeting to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. It was at that meeting where the question of my traveling to Niger was broached with me for the first time and came only after a thorough discussion of what the participants did and did not know about the subject. My bona fides justifying the invitation to the meeting were the trip I had previously taken to Niger to look at other uranium related questions as well as 20 years living and working in Africa, and personal contacts throughout the Niger government. Neither the CPD reports officer nor the State analyst were in the chain of command to know who, or how, the decision was made. The interpretations attributed to them are not the full story. In fact, it is my understanding that the Reports Officer has a different conclusion about Valerie's role than the one offered in the "additional comments". I urge the committee to reinterview the officer and publicly publish his statement.

It is unfortunate that the report failed to include the CIA's position on this matter. If the staff had done so it would undoubtedly have been given the same evidence as provided to Newsday reporters Tim Phelps and Knut Royce in July, 2003. They reported on July 22 that:

"A senior intelligence officer confirmed that Plame was a Directorate of Operations undercover officer who worked `alongside' the operations officers who asked her husband to travel to Niger.
"But he said she did not recommend her husband to undertake the Niger assignment. `They (the officers who did ask Wilson to check the uranium story) were aware of who she was married to, which is not surprising,' he said. `There are people elsewhere in government who are trying to make her look like she was the one who was cooking this up, for some reason,' he said. `I can't figure out what it could be.'
"We paid his (Wilson's) airfare. But to go to Niger is not exactly a benefit. Most people you'd have to pay big bucks to go there,' the senior intelligence official said. Wilson said. he was reimbursed only for expenses." (Newsday article Columnist blows CIA Agent's cover, dated July 22, 2003).

In fact, on July 13 of this year, David Ensor, the CNN correspondent, did call the CIA for a statement of its position and reported that a senior CIA official confirmed my account that Valerie did not propose me for the trip:

"'She did not propose me', he [Wilson] said--others at the CIA did so. A senior CIA official said that is his understanding too.'"

Second conclusion: "Rather that speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided."

This conclusion states that I told the committee staff that I "may have become confused about my own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that the names and dates on the documents were not correct." At the time that I was asked that question, I was not afforded the opportunity to review the articles to which the staff was referring. I have now done so.

On March 7, 2003 the Director General of the IAEA reported to the United Nations Security Council that the documents that had been given to him were "not authentic". His deputy, Jacques Baute, was even more direct, pointing out that the forgeries were so obvious that a quick Google search would have exposed their flaws. A State Department spokesman was quoted the next day as saying about the forgeries "We fell for it." From that time on the details surrounding the documents became public knowledge and were widely reported. I was not the source of information regarding the forensic analysis of the documents in question; the IAEA was.

The first time I spoke publicly about the Niger issue was in response to the State Department's disclaimer. On CNN a few days later, in response to a question, I replied that I believed the US government knew more about the issue than the State Department spokesman had let on and that he had misspoken. I did not speak of my trip.

My first public statement was in my article of July 6 published in the New York Times, written only after it became apparent that the administration was not going to deal with the Niger question unless it was forced to. I wrote the article because I believed then, and I believe now, that it was important to correct the record on the statement in the President's State of the Union address which lent credence to the charge that Iraq was actively reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. I believed that the record should reflect the facts as the US government had known them for over a year. The contents of my article do not appear in the body of the report and is not quoted in the "additional comments." In that article, I state clearly that "As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors - they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government - and were probably forged. (And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)"

The first time I actually saw what were represented as the documents was when Andrea Mitchell, the NBC correspondent handed them to me in an interview on July 21. I was not wearing my glasses and could not read them. I have to this day not read them. I would have absolutely no reason to claim to have done so. My mission was to look into whether such a transaction took place or could take place. It had not and could not. By definition that makes the documents bogus.

The text of the "additional comments" also asserts that "during Mr. Wilson's media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa."

My article in the New York Times makes clear that I attributed to myself "a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs." After it became public that there were then Ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick's report and the report from a four star Marine Corps General, Carleton Fulford in the files of the U. S. government, I went to great lengths to point out that mine was but one of three reports on the subject. I never claimed to have "debunked" the allegation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. I claimed only that the transaction described in the documents that turned out to be forgeries could not have and did not occur. I did not speak out on the subject until several months after it became evident that what underpinned the assertion in the State of the Union address were those documents, reports of which had sparked Vice President Cheney's original question that led to my trip. The White House must have agreed. The day after my article appeared in the Times a spokesman for the President told the Washington Post that "the sixteen words did not rise to the level of inclusion in the State of the Union."

I have been very careful to say that while I believe that the use of the sixteen words in the State of the Union address was a deliberate attempt to deceive the Congress of the United States, I do not know what role the President may have had other than he has accepted responsibility for the words he spoke. I have also said on many occasions that I believe the President has proven to be far more protective of his senior staff than they have been to him.

The "additional comments" also assert: "The Committee found that, for most analysts the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal." In fact, the body of the Senate report suggests the exact opposite:

* In August, 2002, a CIA NESA report on Iraq's weapons of Mass Destruction capabilities did not include the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium information. (pg. 48)

* In September, 2002, during coordination of a speech with an NSC staff member, the CIA analyst suggested the reference to Iraqi attempts to acquire uranium from Africa be removed. The CIA analyst said the NSC staff member said that would leave the British "flapping in the wind." (pg. 50)

* The uranium text was included in the body of the NIE but not in the key judgments. When someone suggested that the uranium information be included as another sign of reconstitution, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst spoke up and said the he did not agree with the uranium reporting and that INR would be including text indicating their disagreement in their footnote on nuclear reconstitution. The NIO said he did not recall anyone really supporting including the uranium issue as part of the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, so he suggested that the uranium information did not need to be part of the key judgments. He told Committee staff he suggested that "We'll leave it in the paper for completeness. Nobody can say we didn't connect the dots. But we don't have to put that dot in the key judgments." (pg. 53)

* On October 2, 2002, the Deputy DCI testified before the SSCI. Senator Jon Kyl asked the Deputy DCI whether he had read the British White Paper and whether he disagreed with anything in the report. The Deputy DCI testified that "the one thing where I think they stretched a little bit beyond where we would stretch is on the points about where Iraq seeking uranium from various African locations. (pg.54)

* On October 4, 2002 the NIO for Strategic and Nuclear Programs testified that "there is some information on attempts ....there's a question about those attempts because of the control of the material in those countries...For us it's more the concern that they (Iraq) uranium in country now. (pg. 54)

* On October 5, 2002, the ADDI said an Iraq nuclear analyst - he could not remember who - raised concerns about the sourcing and some of the facts of the Niger reporting, specifically that the control of the mines in Niger would have made it very difficult to get yellowcake to Iraq. (pg. 55)

* Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI faxed a memo to the Deputy National Security Advisor that said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from this source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory. (pg. 56)

* On October 6, 2002, the DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns. The DCI testified to the SSCI on July 16, 2003, that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak." (pg. 56)

* On October 6, 2002, the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points 1) the evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine cited by the source is under the control of the French authorities. 2) the procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory. And 3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this in one of the two issues where we differed with the British." (Pg 56)

* On March 8, 2003, the intelligence report on my trip was disseminated within the U.S. Government according the Senate report (pg. 43). Further, the Senate report states that "in early March, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for an update on the Niger uranium issue." That update from the CIA "also noted that the CIA would be debriefing a source who may have information related to the alleged sale on March 5." The report then states the "DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC analysts when the report was being disseminated because they knew the high priority of the issue." The report notes that the CIA briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report. (Pg. 46)

It is clear from the body of the Senate report that the Intelligence Community, including the DCI himself, made several attempts to ensure that the President not become a "fact witness" on an allegation that was so weak. A thorough reading of the report substantiates the claim made in my opinion piece in the New York Times and in subsequent interviews I have given on the subject. The sixteen words should never have been in the State of the Union address as the White House now acknowledges.

I undertook this mission at the request of my government in response to a legitimate concern that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute his nuclear weapons program. This was a national security issue that has concerned me since I was the Deputy Chief of Mission in the U.S. Embassy in Iraq before and during the first Gulf War.

At the time of my trip I was in private business and had not offered my views publicly on the policy we should adopt towards Iraq. Indeed, throughout the debate in the runup to the war, I took the position that the U.S. be firm with Saddam Hussein on the question of weapons of mass destruction programs including backing tough diplomacy with the credible threat of force. In that debate I never mentioned my trip to Niger. I did not share the details of my trip until May, 2003, after the war was over, and then only when it became clear that the administration was not going to address the issue of the State of the Union statement.

It is essential that the errors and distortions in the additional comments be corrected for the public record. Nothing could be more important for the American people than to have an accurate picture of the events that led to the decision to bring the United States into war in Iraq. The Senate Intelligence Committee has an obligation to present to the American people the factual basis of that process. I hope that this letter is helpful in that effort. I look forward to your further "additional comments."

Sincerely,

Joseph C. Wilson, IV
Washington, D.C

lauraw,

I thought of another way to make the point. Canada is not "against free trade," but the lumber dispute between the US and Canada has turned into a cautionary tale for any other countries considering trade treaties with the US. The lesson is simple: the US can't be trusted to hold up its end.
----------------
Here's an excerpt from one of hundreds of tellings. Emphasis added at end.

Meanwhile, Ottawa ˜ Washington's oldest and largest free trade partner ˜ is close to giving up hope of reaching a fair settlement of its softwood lumber dispute with the U.S.

Canadian negotiators are refusing to return to the bargaining table. This is not so much an act of defiance as a testament to the pointlessness of making deals with the United States.

Three times, since entering its free trade partnership with the U.S., Canada has followed the rules laid out in the agreement to adjudicate American claims that its lumber exports are unfairly subsidized. Three times, an impartial panel has ruled in Canada's favour. Yet the U.S. continues to impose punitive duties on Canadian softwood.

The latest flare-up occurred last month, when a final-appeal panel under the North American Free Trade Agreement ruled that the U.S. had no right to impose a 27 per cent levy on Canadian lumber imports. U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman said his government disagreed with the decision and would disregard it.

"The American position is absolutely untenable," said Prime Minister Paul Martin. "We've got to step up with retaliation, in my view," said Industry Minister David Emerson.

That led to a paternalistic lecture from U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins, who advised Canadian politicians to stop their "emotional tirades" and seek a negotiated settlement with their American counterparts.

Canadians shook their heads in disbelief. The rest of the world -- Latin America in particular ˜ got a vicarious taste of free trade with the U.S.

I agree that Wilson's letter adequately disposes of the "Wilson is a liar" claim.

For the same reason that I am not convinced that Bush lied about WMD, I have my doubts about whether the outing of Plame was intended as retaliation. It may well be that it was mere incompetence, and that Rove and Libby did not realize that they had carried their usual practices of character assassination beyond the line of legality. Certainly the blunders of the administration when it comes to Iraq suggest that there is more than enough incompetence to go around, however clever they may be at planting rumors and innuendo about their political opposition. Nevertheless, I find the efforts of people who have never even served in the military to vilify two people who have repeatedly placed their lives at risk in the service of this country to be particularly disgusting. If it turns out that they have violated the law in doing so, and end up serving time as a result, I think that justice will have been served.

Don't diss Adam West's Batman.
Campy, silly, are the words often describing the old '60's serial, but it was what it was -- a comic book for the television screen.

The beauty was in its simplicity. You have probably seen Sin City. That's exaclty how a comic book should be adapted for the bigscreen: simple dialogue; still-action shots; and an over-the-top storyline.

I agree that Wilson's letter adequately disposes of the "Wilson is a liar" claim.

Really? It seems to me to be a carefully crafted work of hair-splitting and misdirection. Take a look at Little Tube's favorite part:

The "additional comments" also assert: "The Committee found that, for most analysts the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal." In fact, the body of the Senate report suggests the exact opposite:

Following the colon we expect evidence that his report did *not* lend more credibility. But in the supporting 10 paragraphs (with the asterisks), only the 10th mentions his report, and then only to say that it was disseminated, but not to the VP's office. Where's the counter-argument? This sort of flagrant obfuscation ought to serve as a real clue as to Wilson's integrity.

Following the colon we expect evidence that his report did *not* lend more credibility. But in the supporting 10 paragraphs (with the asterisks), only the 10th mentions his report, and then only to say that it was disseminated, but not to the VP's office. Where's the counter-argument? This sort of flagrant obfuscation ought to serve as a real clue as to Wilson's integrity.

Isn't this kind of irrelevant, given that subsequent events have so clearly vindicated Wilson's evaluation?--there was never any evidence found of Nigerian sales of yellowcake, and the original documents that triggered Wilson's mission turned out to be forged. And no evidence of an ongoing nuclear program was found in Iran after the invasion. So clearly, the analysts at the State Dept., who agreed with Wilson that his supported the conclusion that the supposed Niger deal was bogus, were thinking more clearly than the CIA analyst who refused to let Wilson's results shake his previous evaluation that Saddam had restarted his nuclear weapons program.

Isn't this kind of irrelevant . . .

You were saying that you found Wilson's letter a convincing response to those who called him a liar: I'm saying that closely reading the letter gives me the opposite impression. If that is irrelevant, then the letter shouldn't have been posted in the first place.

You were saying that you found Wilson's letter a convincing response to those who called him a liar: I'm saying that closely reading the letter gives me the opposite impression. If that is irrelevant, then the letter shouldn't have been posted in the first place.

It is irrelevant, because Wilson was in no position to know the conclusions reached by CIA analysts on the basis of his report. Wilson was reporting his own conclusions, not theirs. So the evaluation of the CIA analyst, in addition to being wrong, is irrelevant to the question of Wilson's veracity in describing what he found and the conclusions that he reached.

It is irrelevant, because Wilson was in no position to know the conclusions reached by CIA analysts on the basis of his report.

So let's recap:
1) Wilson says his report to the CIA should have stopped the '16 words' from appearing in the SotU.

2) Major flap ensues, Senate Select Committee investigates, finds the CIA thought the only interesting part of Wilson's report was the Iraqi trade delegation story.

3) Senate Committee concludes that rather than debunking the idea of Iraq's active interest in procuring uranium, Wilson's report actually offered a little support for the idea.

4) Right wing goes WTF? and concludes this was a hatchet job.

5) Wilson writes letter, says the Senate Committee's conclusion was wrong, but offers no evidence why.

6) TGibbs says letter proves to him that Wilson is a truthspeaker.

7) Geoff says letter proves nothing, unless it is that Wilson is a skilled liar.

8) TGibbs says doesn't matter, because Wilson was reporting his own conclusions, not the CIA's.

So your point 8 goes back to the original accusation that Wilson had suppressed evidence and greatly exaggerated the significance of his contribution to the overall intelligence picture. This glosses over the apparent situation we have where Wilson is lying to your face in his letter (I have proof that the Iraq intelligence report is wrong - here it is - mumble, mumble, mumble - there you have it!).

The question always comes back to Wilson's integrity and motives, and, I think, his hubris. When we seem him dancing before our eyes, and inflating the importance of his mission and its results (he demurs, then immediately tracks back to the overwhelming import of his conclusions), I think it's clear that he had an agenda, and that his integrity was secondary to his ego.

And clearly the Bush administration, who saw that radical Islam was mutating, not in the habit of announcing their intentions to sweet mint tea drinking officals in the state department or the western press, was absolutley correct in their assessment that we would either fight them over there or over here. Or had you not seen what is going on in Europe, our erstwhile allies, over the last few months?

Wake up and stop arguing about stupid side issues. There is a war of civilizations going on. Its not hype and its not Bushitler bullshit. Its well past time we stopped trying to score points in ultimately pointless parlor games of what happened 2 years ago and look what is happening now. If Valerie Plame had wanted to remain in the shadows, having her husband write an Op-ed piece in the most widely distribued and read newspapers in the world about his CIA sponsored mission to Niger was not the way to do it. Joe Wilson decided to put himself squarely in the public eye and open to public scrutiny.

The Netherlands did not go to war against Iraq and yet they are suffering with Islamic radicals. France was the most vociferous opponent of the war in Iraq and they have Islamic gangs burning the country in almost 2 weeks of rioting. Indonesia has children being beheaded, fucking BEHEADED, for the crime of being children. The list of countries where this is happening to greater or lesser degrees is endless.

The Bush administration is far from perfect in many ways. But at least they have the sense to understand the threat that is radical..and maybe ordinary Islam, and the balls to take the steps to make sure the war of cultures takes place on their shores and not ours.

This is a war. Make no mistake about it. And its not even close to being over. Pick a side.

Geoff performs a particularly nasty and dishonest switch here:

Geoff cites Wilson’s letter: The "additional comments" also assert: "The Committee found that, for most analysts the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal." In fact, the body of the Senate report suggests the exact opposite:

After which Wilson then gives devastating evidence from the report to show how analysts had determined, repeatedly, that the claim of a “reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal” was baseless. The effect is clearly to show that for the “additional comments” to make the assertion about Wilson lending credibility is nothing but a swiping smear. In other words, looking at the bigger picture of the report, Wilson shows that the claim was so incredible, in the view of the analysts, that the Committee’s tacked-on “additional comments” are contradicting the report itself, and can scarcely have any reason to do this other than to slime him.

It’s a class act, in part because Wilson does this without putting himself at the center of it. Instead, he uses the points to lead up to this conclusion:

It is clear from the body of the Senate report that the Intelligence Community, including the DCI himself, made several attempts to ensure that the President not become a "fact witness" on an allegation that was so weak. A thorough reading of the report substantiates the claim made in my opinion piece in the New York Times and in subsequent interviews I have given on the subject. The sixteen words should never have been in the State of the Union address as the White House now acknowledges.

Wilson stays focused on the big picture, and along the way shows that the main report bears him out (which is enough for the close reader to see that the additional comments = slime).

But that focus on the big picture (rather than a refutation of the silly assertion about Wilson increasing credibility of the claim) is enough for geoff to proclaim, “This sort of flagrant obfuscation ought to serve as a real clue as to Wilson's integrity.”

Ahem. The flagrant obfuscation is yours, geoff.

Geoff said, The question always comes back to Wilson's integrity and motives

Of course. Even though the original claim of Iraq seeking uranium oxide never made any sense, because it already had 500+ tons. Even though Cheney had access to enough information to know that he was asking an absurd question, even though the bad information was used by the WH despite repeated warnings, even though we know from Libby’s indictment that evidence shows a conspiracy of top officials who participated in the disclosure of classified information, even though the outing of a CIA agent may have repercussions for years, and even though Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have given years of service for their country… for Geoff,

The question always comes back to Wilson's integrity and motives

Isn’t it funny how that works? Isn’t that just fucking hilarious?

I used to wonder if geoff was intellectually dishonest, or if his posts showed a particularly density or lack of comprehension shaped by bias. I've decided it's a distinction without a difference. Geoff's "close readings" are inevitably an arrogant misreading which he then claims shows some inconsistency or worse on the part of the author.

Geoff, Jackstraw, great posts.

As for Tubino? Grandma always said, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything."

"...."

Geoff, Jackstraw, great posts.

Thanks.

As for Tubino? Grandma always said, "If you don't have something nice to say, don't say anything."

I dunno, kind of made me laugh.

Anybody recall why the Niger report was initially viewed as so improbable by CIA and State Dept analysis? I'll help: because the uranium mines were under the control of a French consortium and France, they reasoned, would never risk doing illegal business with Hussein. Everyone Wilson asked naturally reported that they had not engaged in deals with Iraq, something so obvious and expected that a number of people in the CIA had questioned the value of the trip before it had ever taken place.

But Wilson's account did strengthen the case for the transaction having taken place. Iraq had, according to his debriefing, attempted to negotiate for uranium in 1999. And the improbability of France engaging in forbidden commerce with Hussein -- the basis for all of the skepticism? Please see: Oil for Food Scandal.

Wilson says his report to the CIA should have stopped the '16 words' from appearing in the SotU.

I challenge you to find any quote in which Wilson says this. Here is the closest I could find was where he said that he played "a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs." After all, by the time of the SotU, it was known that the documents that triggered Wilson's trip were a forgery, so Wilson's report was hardly the only evidence available.

Major flap ensues, Senate Select Committee investigates, finds the CIA thought the only interesting part of Wilson's report was the Iraqi trade delegation story.

And State Dept. analysts disagreed. We now know that Wilson and the State Dept were right, and that the CIA analysts (who were perhaps a bit too attached to their own "slam dunk" assessment") were wrong. But there is no reason why Wilson could be expected to know of either evaluation, so this is irrelevant to the question of Wilson's veracity.

Right wing goes WTF? and concludes this was a hatchet job

The "hatchet job" being revealing the truth: that at the time of the SotU address it was already established through multiple lines of evidence (Wilson's being only a small part) that the Niger story was bogus.

Wilson writes letter, says the Senate Committee's conclusion was wrong, but offers no evidence why.

He simply points out that by the time of the SotU, virtually everybody in the intelligence community--including the CIA--had come around to agree with his evaluation that Saddam was not obtaining uranium from Niger, and agreed that the Africa story did not belong in the address.

So your point 8 goes back to the original accusation that Wilson had suppressed evidence and greatly exaggerated the significance of his contribution to the overall intelligence picture.

So which part of "a small part" don't you understand?

This glosses over the apparent situation we have where Wilson is lying to your face in his letter (I have proof that the Iraq intelligence report is wrong - here it is - mumble, mumble, mumble - there you have it!).

Please quote the specific passage in which Wilson claims to "have proof." I can't find it in his article. I do find where he says, "If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why)." This hardly seems to reflect the sort of hubris you accuse him of

The question always comes back to Wilson's integrity and motives

I think that Wilson's motives are pretty clear. After all, this is a man who has put his own life at risk in the service of his country, which is more than his critics in the Administration can say. Clearly, while working for the first Bush administration, he came to expect a certain amount of integrity, and was shocked to find decisions apparently being made based upon "preconceptions about Iraq" rather than solid intelligence. And then when a cabal of political hacks attacked his wife--another brave person who has placed her life at risk in the service of her country--and destroyed his career, he seems to have gotten pissed off for some reason.

Wilson's history of being correct is clearly profoundly embarrassing to the Bush administration. First he turned out to be right about the Iraq/Niger connection being bogus, and now he has also turned out to be right in believing that Libby and Rove were involved in the betrayal of his wife--which was dismissed at the time as "ridiculous" by the Administration and their sycophants. The attempts to twist Wilson's words to make him out a liar seem to be taking on an increasing air of desperation.

I challenge you to find any quote in which Wilson says this.

You're kidding, right? It is his thesis in his original op-ed to the NYT. He starts off with the question: Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?. Then he describes his trip, his conclusions, and says that 4 documents based on his report should have circulated through the govenment, saying:

The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership.

There are other quotes from interviews and the like, but as I said, that is the entire thrust of his original op-ed.

But there is no reason why Wilson could be expected to know of either evaluation, so this is irrelevant to the question of Wilson's veracity.

Except that the mention was part of his report to the CIA, but was omitted from his presentations to the public. If it was important enough to tell the CIA, it was important enough for us. That, my friend, is manipulation of intelligence data.

virtually everybody in the intelligence community
Except the British, of course. And of course, Wilson only runs his damning timeline to 10/6/02. The next day the CIA said: "better to generalize the first bullet as follows: Sought uranium from Africa to feed the enrichment process." They repeated this on 1/13/03.

So which part of "a small part" don't you understand?

This is Wilson's favorite tactic - he caveats, then immediately turns around and violates the caveats. In his original op-ed he talks about his 'small part,' but then tells us that his report should have singlehandedly dissuaded the administration from talking about uranium from Africa.

Please quote the specific passage in which Wilson claims to "have proof."

You seem to have misunderstood this point. The proof I was referring to was in the letter Tubino posted, as I mentioned above. Here's the passage again.

The "additional comments" also assert: "The Committee found that, for most analysts the former ambassador's report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal." In fact, the body of the Senate report suggests the exact opposite:

My paraphrasing was referring to the last line, where he implies that the succeeding paragraphs will show how his report lent less credibility to the Niger-Iraq uranium deal. Instead he just quotes excerpts which show the intelligence

I think that Wilson's motives are pretty clear.

As do I., but we'll just have to disagree as to what they are.

a cabal of political hacks attacked his wife

Very presumptive.

Just noticed I didn't quite finish the post before last. The point is, he tries to show that the evidence for the Iraq-Niger deal was weak, which has nothing to do with how his report fit in.

You're kidding, right? It is his thesis in his original op-ed to the NYT.

So where, specifically, does he say that "his report to the CIA should have stopped the '16 words' from appearing in the SotU," as you claimed? It certainly isn't in either of the excerpts you quoted. In one he says merely that he presumes that the evaluation that he provided was transmitted, and in the other he raises the question of how the information was used. As he states in the full article, he initially presumed that there was other evidence that refuted his conclusion that the Niger deal never happened, but then found out that other evidence supported, rather than refuted, his conclusion.

So the question was, given none of the evidence--of which his own report was "a small part"--supported the claim, why was it in the SotU address?

Except that the mention was part of his report to the CIA, but was omitted from his presentations to the public. If it was important enough to tell the CIA, it was important enough for us. That, my friend, is manipulation of intelligence data.

This is pretty disingenuous. Wilson's debriefing by the CIA clearly went on at considerable length and detail. His article for the NYT was a few columns. Whatever the CIA analyst who was trying to rescue his own pet theory thought, Wilson clearly felt that a meeting that never happened, with at most a speculative relationship to any supposed uranium deal, did not support the claim that he was sent to investigate. Remember, Wilson was not sent to investigate whether Iraq was interested in getting more uranium--he was sent to investigate the claim that there was an actual deal in place for Iraq to buy uranium from Niger.

This is Wilson's favorite tactic - he caveats, then immediately turns around and violates the caveats. In his original op-ed he talks about his 'small part,' but then tells us that his report should have singlehandedly dissuaded the administration from talking about uranium from Africa.

Again, I challenge you to show me any passage in which Wilson claims that the uranium point should have been omitted solely based on the evidence that he provided.

You seem to have misunderstood this point. The proof I was referring to was in the letter Tubino posted, as I mentioned above. Here's the passage again.

According to you, Wilson claimed "I have proof that the Iraq intelligence report is wrong." I am asking a simple question: where, specifically did Wilson make such a claim, or even mention the word "proof?" The strongest term Wilson uses in the quote that you provide is "suggests." Where I come from, a suggestion is a pretty far cry from a proof.

This is the sort of thing that I mean when I refer to twisting Wilson's words. A "suggestion" somehow becomes "proof." A "small part" somehow becomes "single-handed." These sorts of alterations are not "paraphrasing;" they are blatantly deceptive.

tgibbs, if Wilson did not intend, with his NYT op-ed, to imply that his report proved Bush's "16 words" wrong, then what was his intention in writing it?

It's funny that Wilson was motivated enough to write an op-ed for the NYT, but not enough to submit a written report of his Niger trip to the CIA.

So the question was, given none of the evidence--of which his own report was "a small part"--supported the claim, why was it in the SotU address?

It's like you've never heard of the Butler report.

But let's take a look at his 'small part.' Did he say in his op-ed: "if you look at the compilation of reports and intelligence data, the Iraq-Niger deal did not and could not have happened?" Nope. He couldn't, because he didn't have any idea what would be included in such a compilation.

Instead he said: "They got my report, I'm sure it was read at the highest levels, and they went ahead with the 16 words anyway."

As far as your "suggests" vs. "proves" quibbling - fine, we'll just ignore his "suggestion" and believe that he's guilty, since his "suggestion" was his only exoneration. Geez, it's clear that he's saying that the additional comments in the Committee report are wrong, and he's offering the succeeding paragraphs as his evidence. If even he doesn't think that it 'proves' that he's right, then we can toss that section out. If that's what you really want.

Wilson's debriefing by the CIA clearly went on at considerable length and detail.

This is clear from what?

As he states in the full article, he initially presumed that there was other evidence that refuted his conclusion that the Niger deal never happened, but then found out that other evidence supported, rather than refuted, his conclusion.

Which article are you referring to? He has never acknowledged that other evidence refuted his conclusion. He never discussed other evidence (other than the debriefing with the Nigerien embassy)in his op-ed, and he wouldn't legally have access to any other evidence until the release of the Intelligence report.

tgibbs, if Wilson did not intend, with his NYT op-ed, to imply that his report proved Bush's "16 words" wrong, then what was his intention in writing it?

Clearly to raise the question of how information--both his own and other's--was being used by the administration to formulate policy, as he states in his NYT article:

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.

It's funny that Wilson was motivated enough to write an op-ed for the NYT, but not enough to submit a written report of his Niger trip to the CIA.

Don't you think it's kind of silly to try to make Wilson responsible for the way that the CIA chose to debrief him? Remember, he was working for the CIA, not the other way around.

tgibbs, if Wilson did not intend, with his NYT op-ed, to imply that his report proved Bush's "16 words" wrong, then what was his intention in writing it?

Clearly to raise the question of how information--both his own and other's--was being used by the administration to formulate policy, as he states in his NYT article:

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.

It's funny that Wilson was motivated enough to write an op-ed for the NYT, but not enough to submit a written report of his Niger trip to the CIA.

Don't you think it's kind of silly to try to make Wilson responsible for the way that the CIA chose to debrief him? Remember, he was working for the CIA, not the other way around.

Clearly to raise the question of how information--both his own and other's--was being used by the administration to formulate policy

In the words 'that answer,' Wilson is referring to the preceding line, where he discusses his report. 'That answer' means the Wilson report, nothing more. In the following sentence Wilson says 'my information,' again talking about his report and his report only.

And he did more than 'raise the question,' he accused the administration of twisting the intelligence.

Actually, he did:
Which article are you referring to? He has never acknowledged that other evidence refuted his conclusion. He never discussed other evidence (other than the debriefing with the Nigerien embassy)in his op-ed, and he wouldn't legally have access to any other evidence until the release of the Intelligence report.

Actually, he did:

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation.

So initially he believed that there was likely other evidence that supported the statement.

He never discussed other evidence (other than the debriefing with the Nigerien embassy)in his op-ed

Actually, he did:

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

So there's the evidence that the documents were forged, as well as Niger's denial. But he is still open to the possibility that other evidence that he had not seen might show that he was wrong:

If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why).

As far as your "suggests" vs. "proves" quibbling - fine, we'll just ignore his "suggestion" and believe that he's guilty, since his "suggestion" was his only exoneration.

I see. So your proposal is that we just ignore the fact that he never claimed to have proof, and just assume that he is guilty of saying it. That certainly is in keeping with the rest of your argument. I also find rather amusing your notion that it is "quibbling" to point out that a "suggestion" is not even close to a "proof."

In the words 'that answer,' Wilson is referring to the preceding line, where he discusses his report. 'That answer' means the Wilson report, nothing more. In the following sentence Wilson says 'my information,' again talking about his report and his report only.

He acknowledges the possibility that his information was "deemed to be inaccurate"--presumably based upon other knowledge. And earlier in the article, he explicitly acknowledges that other information--such as evidence of a deal with another African country--could support the President's statement. Of course, we now know that no such evidence exists.

TEST

THE PAGE CANNOT BE DISPLAYED PIECE OF &#*&^#*

Fine, I'll chop this in half and post it in two parts.

Clearly to raise the question of how information--both his own and other's--was being used by the administration to formulate policy, as he states in his NYT article:

He is a lot more cautious, vague, and magnanimous in the op-ed than he was in the post-Niger months prior to writing it. Then, he was pretty much explicitly stating everything that you say his op-ed was "deceivingly twisted" to mean.

So initially he believed that there was likely other evidence that supported the statement.

Perhaps we're getting mixed up on which conclusion was supported. I wasn't referring to the President's statement, I was referring to Wilson's conclusions about Niger, which was your original subject, and which the quote does not address.

So there's the evidence that the documents were forged, as well as Niger's denial.

This has nothing to do with whether Iraq *sought* uranium.

So your proposal is that we just ignore the fact that he never claimed to have proof, and just assume that he is guilty of saying it.

Well, I was just following your errant lead. I never said he was 'guilty' of saying he had proof, I said that he did a poor job of rebutting the claim in the SSCI Intelligence report. He 'suggested' that the report was wrong, and offered 10 irrelevant paragraphs to support his 'suggestion.' These supporting paragraphs were what I called his 'proof.' In the sense that they are meant to carry his argument, they are indeed his 'proof.'

But if you're going to claim that his supporting citations are not proof, and that he is only 'suggesting' that the additional comments in the SSCI report were wrong, then you have ceded the argument. I don't think that's what you intended.

I also find rather amusing your notion that it is "quibbling" to point out that a "suggestion" is not even close to a "proof."

In diplomacy, they are more often than not identical. And it is indeed quibbling, since whether a suggestion or proof, the referenced paragraphs in his letter to the Senate do nothing to support his case - a point you have studiously ignored.

Part 2. SECOND ATTEMPT THIS IS KILLING ME.

Don't you think it's kind of silly to try to make Wilson responsible for the way that the CIA chose to debrief him? Remember, he was working for the CIA, not the other way around.

Perhaps you're right. In not asking for a written report from Wilson, in getting the intel wrong for Saddam's WMD (wrong about having them in 1991 and not having them in 2003,) and other failures and inexplicable actions, the CIA has demonstrated itself to be grossly incompetent.

That would make their assertions of deals and non-deals inconsequential, hence making your confidence in "evidence" against such things unfounded.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Those are the now infamous 16 words everyone seems to want to debate. I thought it might be helpful to put them out there so we could at least have some facts to talk about. I'm not sure how any of this could be debatable. Bush made his source quite clear, the British gov't. Interestingly enough, neither the CIA nor Joe Wilson was mentioned.

Now thanks to the wonder that is the internet, one can also find Joe Wilson's entire Op-ed piece, provacatively titled What I Didn't Find In Africa.

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

That is the opening two paragraphs from his OPINION PIECE printed in July of 2003, 5 months after the SOTU. Please note that it was in this section of the Times, not one of the news sections because it was nothing more than his opinion. The general theme of his entire piece remains consistent, if not clearly couched in the language of the career diplomat he was. Wilson goes into great detail to lay out his belief that he clearly debunked any notion of Niger being a source for uranium and unless there was information coming from another source about another country then the Bush administration cooked the info. This despite the fact that Bush specifically refered to the British government, not the CIA, in the SOTU speech.

There can be no other way to read this document. Since its publication in the Times it has been used by the left to make that very case. Joe Wilson himself has used it as reference for that case. Anyone who now says anything else is clearly deluded or intellectually dishonest.

The question of why the CIA would allow him to publish this piece at all let alone not request to vet it before it went out is an interesting one. At the very least, if they were so worried about Wilson's wife, you would think that they would tell him that putting out a very provactive piece, essentially implying that the President of the United States had knowingly used false information to take us to war, treason, would elict a strong response. This isn't smearing. This is hardball politics and has only been going on since the beginning of time. Anyone is free to give their opinion but nobody is given a free pass to put out highly accusatory document without any scrutiny.

I remain unconvinced that anyone broke the law, knowingly outing a covert CIA operative. If they did I hope they are punished. With the power of hindsight I wish the Bush administration had never responded to Wilson in any way and let him go the way of Cindy Sheehan. There was no reason to respond to him, there was more than enough justification for going to war. The whole arguement was to get rid of Saddam on the premise that he was not cooperating with the UN, not obeying the sanctions, had not proven that he had destroyed his acknowledged WMD's and prevent him from acquiring any new weapons.

Some have said we must not act until the threat is imminent. Since when have terrorists and tyrants announced their intentions, politely putting us on notice before they strike? If this threat is permitted to fully and suddenly emerge, all actions, all words, and all recriminations would come too late. Trusting in the sanity and restraint of Saddam Hussein is not a strategy, and it is not an option.

Until such time as anything is proven I wish Wilson and the left would stop whinning like a bunch of 6 year olds over getting slapped for starting a fight.

Perhaps we're getting mixed up on which conclusion was supported. I wasn't referring to the President's statement, I was referring to Wilson's conclusions about Niger, which was your original subject, and which the quote does not address.

No, my initial statement was that Wilson's rebuttal pretty well disposes of attempts to paint him as a liar. Whether or not CIA analysts agreed with his conclusion is irrelevant to his veracity (he made no claims and probably had no knowledge of what they thought)--and in any case, it is generally conceded that there never was any deal between Iraq and Niger, just as Wilson reported.

This has nothing to do with whether Iraq *sought* uranium.

A claim that now seems to rest on little more than some forged documents and a detail from Wilson's report that somebody from Iraq wanted to talk to somebody in Niger, and the guy in Niger thought that maybe he wanted to talk about uranium, but since the talk never took place the guy in Niger never actually learned what the guy from Iraq wanted to talk about.

Clearly, evidence that tenuous was too weak even for the Administration, hence their admission that the claim should never have been included in the SotU address.

And now that we know that Iraq had substantial stocks of unprocessed uranium, and still no way to process, the notion that Iraq was actively seeking more yellowcake looks even less tenable.

Well, I was just following your errant lead. I never said he was 'guilty' of saying he had proof, I said that he did a poor job of rebutting the claim in the SSCI Intelligence report.

As I said, he did a good job of rebutting those aspects of the report that have been interpreted as casting doubt on his truthfulness. One can of course question his judgment, but it sounds kind of silly when he has turned out to be right, both about Nigerian uranium and about the culprits within the administration.

No, my initial statement was that Wilson's rebuttal pretty well disposes of attempts to paint him as a liar.

And my point was that his rebuttal is clearly trying to mislead you. You keep saying 'it doesn't matter,' but the fact is that Wilson defense is that it isn't true, not that it doesn't matter. And then he tap dances through cherry-picked evidence to support his defense.

A claim that now seems to rest . . .

So not only have you not read the Butler report, you haven't read the SSCI report either. What a waste of time. I thought you were conversant in the background of this case. My mistake.

Clearly, evidence that tenuous was too weak even for the Administration, hence their admission that the claim should never have been included in the SotU address.

Nope, the adminstration's statement was factually correct, but they agreed that they shouldn't have included the statement unless there was strong support from US intelligence.

And now that we know . . .

Through the miracle of hindsight, making this irrelevant.

and about the culprits within the administration

A bit premature, at this point.

I, BTW, am done with this thread, since it has long since passed the point of entertainment or productivity. Take the last word.