Bush's Whitehall Palace Speech--opinions?

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
You do realize that Radio Free Europe is a U.S. corporation funded by the U.S. Congress, right?

Nope, I obviously didn’t know that. Sorry. :smack:

*Originally posted by Sam Stone *
**Maybe you should work on your reading skills, since you also say there was no positive evidence in the articles I linked:

There is strong evidence that Atta has been in Prague. There were eyewitnesses that claimed Atta was the one who met the Iraqi agent in Prague. The original debunking of the meeting came from the FBI, which claimed it had various receipts that showed Atta was in the U.S. at that time. After this, Havel came out and said that Czech intelligence had decided that it wasn’t Atta.**

No-one contests Atta’s Prague visit any more. All you’ve got is evidence that a meeting could have taken place. That’s a far, far cry from evidence that a meeting did take place. Where’s your positive evidence in the linked articles? The NYT story you linked to says this:

Among the 50 reports cited in Mr. Feith’s memorandum, perhaps the most sensational is a Czech intelligence service claim that the Sept. 11 hijacker Muhammed Atta met several times in Prague with a former Iraqi intelligence chief, who in 2000 is said to have requested a transfer of funds to Mr. Atta. Yet the C.I.A. has said the meetings remain unconfirmed, as the memo also points out.

Your Slate link says:

Though the latest wave of news stories says the meeting never happened, the Bush administration reportedly isn’t ready to abandon the story. The Los Angeles Times reported in early August that the administration had decided to back the story over the doubts of the FBI and CIA. But an intelligence official told the LAT that there was no new evidence of a meeting between Atta and al-Ani, and the CIA had not been asked to re-evaluate the case. On Aug. 22, Newsweek said that the only evidence remains the “uncorroborated claim” of a Czech informant who says he saw the two men together on April 9, 2001. But, who needs evidence? According to Newsweek, when an FBI agent recently told Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz that the meeting was “unlikely,” Wolfowitz grilled him until he agreed it was technically possible, since the FBI can’t cite Atta’s whereabouts on April 9.

[adaher]

Hersh’s claim is that the case is not open and shut. He is right, for what it’s worth. Many have also made the same case about Al Qaeda and 9/11. They are right.

Which is all just academic, because we can rarely know for certain about these things. We can only go buy what was likely.

The Niger claim was based on the fact that an Iraqi trade representative was in Niger for talks. Niger’s main export is uranium. Their second main export is livestock. British intelligence made a fairly solid assumption that the most likely reason for the Iraqi rep to be there was to buy uranium, especially since this was Iraqi practice in the past. Although it is not impossible that it could have been a social call, or an attempt to buy livestock or maybe some other product, that was considered unlikely. The British still stand by this claim. The media’s protrayal of the claim as a pure “fabrication” is in itself a fabrication.

[Desmostylus]

*Originally posted by adaher *
Hersh’s claim is that the case is not open and shut. He is right, for what it’s worth. Many have also made the same case about Al Qaeda and 9/11. They are right.

That’s not Hersh’s claim at all. Hersh’s claim is that the assassination attempt story was fabricated.

*Originally posted by adaher *
**The Niger claim was based on the fact that an Iraqi trade representative was in Niger for talks. Niger’s main export is uranium. Their second main export is livestock. British intelligence made a fairly solid assumption that the most likely reason for the Iraqi rep to be there was to buy uranium, especially since this was Iraqi practice in the past. Although it is not impossible that it could have been a social call, or an attempt to buy livestock or maybe some other product, that was considered unlikely. The British still stand by this claim. The media’s protrayal of the claim as a pure “fabrication” is in itself a fabrication. **

You got some kind of cite for this, or are you just making stuff up as you go along? As far as I know, the Niger claim was based upon a quite obviously forged document. If all you’re adding to this is that some guy from Iraq went to Niger, how does that change things?

What planet are you from?

[adaher]

That’s not Hersh’s claim at all. Hersh’s claim is that the assassination attempt story was fabricated.

Did we read the same article?

You got some kind of cite for this, or are you just making stuff up as you go along? As far as I know, the Niger claim was based upon a quite obviously forged document.

That’s what the press portrayed it as, but the Niger document was the most publicized piece or evidence, and it turned out to be spectacularly false. The British have acknowledged the forgery and still stand by their claim since they say they have other data which they won’t reveal. Except for the known fact that an Iraqi rep was in Niger.

Iraq war: more revelations of lies over Niger uranium

In the interests of balance, the article includes the diplomat’s own explanation of why he went to Niger. It is plausible, and it’s quite possible he’s telling the truth. But if I was worried about WMD, and I saw Iraq sending someone to Niger to talk about trade, “uranium” is what would pop into my head if I’m an intelligence analyst.

[II_Gyan_II]

Originally posted by adaher *
**
Which is all just academic, because we can rarely know for certain about these things. We can only go buy what was likely.*

And there’s the catch. What is likely?

Everyone, including me, has allegiances. Even a critical American tends to start off believing the best of things, until evidence crops up to the contrary. How do you decide what’s likely? What base values and motivations do you attach to American diplomats or Iraqi generals or Saudi terrorists or Chinese PLA commanders? Are they the same? Are American leaders more pure, more honest and patriotic towards America than leaders elsewhere are towards their foundations?

Does the American govt. not have any interest in presenting certain “facts” and dressing them up a certain way? Or By God, Americans mostly do the right thing and hence there is no need?

[adaher]

YOu bring up good questions, but I can only answer one of them with any level of certainty.

I trust a democratic leader over a tyrant any day.