I’m sorry, did I mention Karl Rove?
Perhaps I should have been more clear. A cite * from Wilson’s report*. As the Senate report’s ‘out’ is: “for most intelligence analysts…”
Which as we now know means, “supine lackeys of the Bush administration, acting under direction to find the particular result.”
I want to add one more thing. It was the CIA that prompted criminal investigations. Hmmmm a CIA person is attacked by the administration, and the CIA looks into it. They do “their thing” and decide there is enough there to refer it to the FBI. This still begs the question. If Novak leaked it to Rove, then where did Novak get the info to begin with? Reporters don’t get to attend secret meetings and don’t get to see secret reports unless they were leaked. And why did Rove neither confirm nor deny (standard procedure) but instead said she was “fair game”? Why is it that one reporter went to jail and another barely escaped, but Novak is still free? He broke the story. He should be in jail. One or more other people should be in there with him.
The real-world arbiter of truth here is Saddam’s A-bomb program. Can you show us Saddam’s A-bomb program? Why not?
I looked for it, but I didn’t find it here. Can you?
OK. This thread is just about to be shut down. If you kids can’t make your points without name-calling or references to displaying private parts of the anatomy, then you are not sufficiently mature to play in my sandbox.
As a general rule, much like the original application of Godwin’s Law, the first poster to claim “all you people-I-don’t-like are stoopid” demonstrates that s/he has lost the debate. Of course, when both sides repeat the same mindless mantra, it indicates that, regardless who is right, the wrong team is playing.
Cool it.
[ /Moderator Mode ]
Ok, I found what Wilson himself has to say:
So the question is whether that can be reconciled with support for the yellowcake argument.
Well, his report doesn’t conclusively rule out the possibility of such a purchase, however increasingly remote that possibility was on the evidence. And that was enough for the analysts to dishonestly make the findings they had been directed to make.
So, nothing Wilson could have reported would have dissuaded the analysts from acting contrary to the public interest, in their own, partisan interest of supporting the Bush administration’s directive.
Mystery solved.
Wait, wait, wait! Let me get this right. You are citing the Susan Schmitt article as evidence??
Susan Schmitt?
Her article??
How fucking embarrassing for you!
Susan Schmitt reported that the Senate report said that Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger.
The report said that Iran had tried to buy 400 tons of yellowcake.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58334-2004Jul17.html
Iraq/Iran. What’s the difference when you are reading a report, which is hard, hard work.
She should be embarrassed. You should be embarrassed.
Iran??
*I’m * embarrassed I let the scepticism slip.
Whatever was I doing, giving out credit for reading comprehension willy nilly like that?
This is the third time in this thread I see **Stephe96 ** swallow hook line and sinker what the right media told him to think. It amazes to me how willing people are to defend unethical (or very likely criminal) actions; even more astonishing is to see them come forward with certifiable pathetic points to defend those actions.
True,
but it’s also a tiny bit entertaining watching apologists wriggle and squirm, which they know. Hence the low turnout and the meagre pickings from steph, jfarrell and the like.
Anyway, Wilson: I found this with some google:
The “additional comments” (in the Senate Intelligence Committee report) also assert: “The Committee found that, for most analysts, the former ambassador’s Wilson 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 edit)
It’s from ‘Daily Kos’ and ‘Salon.’
Take some pity on us unworthy, TomnDeb, for our patience is sorely taxed.
We buy some furniture, and bring it home in a pick-up truck, borrowed from our brother who is otherwise useless. It is an innocent excercise, well-intended, and yet…
We are assailed for enslaving a duck to carry our furniture! We are perlexed, of course, who wouldn’t be. We reassure that by no means would we do such a thing, even if we could, which we can’t. A duck simply cannot be pressed into such service, it would falter and fail. And yet we are sternly reprimanded: Well, then, if the thing is impossible, why did you insist upon it?
We grow vexed. We take our critic firmly by the hand, and walk him about the truck, pointing out the features…the tires, the doors, the steering wheels…that are present. Then we point our the features…the feathers, the waterproof Nixon, the quack…which are lacking and we beg our critic to draw the obvious conclusion. They furrow their brows and walk round again, kicking the tires, trying the doors, and then, just when it looks as though good sense will triumph…they press the horn.
“Aha! it quacks! And how can we be certain of this? Well, there is no echo! It is a known fact that of all noises, only a duck’s quack does not echo!” We are bereft. We fetch encyclopedia, fact sheets, even The Writings and lay out our authorities. After careful examination they ask “Did you fetch these on the duck as well?”
We swoon, we are dizzy. We seize our critics bodily, brusquely, we thrust them towards the front and open the hood…“the beak!”…no, damn your eyes! no! it is a* hood*, it is metal, there is nothing remotely avian about it, look where its says “Ford”!! And look, there, tell me what you see! Tell me!
And they glare at us with stern disapproval and scold: “How cruel! How ingeniously cruel, you have prised this poor creatures jaws apart and stuffed a six-cyclinder engine into its unoffending maw!”
We stagger away, we are defeated, and sorely vexed. We want only strong drink and powerful drugs, to numb our shredded Reason, and one or another of us has muttered “stupid!” and…we are sorry. We are apologetic. We beseech your tolerant forbearance, but we are human, we have our limits. Job would have torn a length of sackcloth from his person to fashion a garrotte, Mother Theresa would have pulled a .38 from her ankle holster, and fired until she exhausted her ammunition, and then she would have flailed them with her rosary beads.
We will try.
Frankly, I find it hard to believe that of the 250 posts in this thread, enough have included name calling or references to genitalia to warrant comment.
I mean, Mal Adroit seems to have referred to genitals because he was hurt that people didn’t comment on his point in post #144 (about how Rove’s conversation with Cooper was the point at which he clearly committed a crime). I thought it was a good point. So much so that I had made it four posts (and 2 and half hours earlier). He didn’t comment about my point when he re-made it, but you didn’t notice me throwing around genitalia references.
Unfortunately, the person to whom those corrective responses would have been most useful chose not to respond, but to move on to a different assertion, one equally faulty.
I don’t see how the behavior of these two people should result in the entire thread being shut down, and all of us chastized for being children.
You almost got my pity, 'luci, but then you repeated the old “duck doesn’t echo” canard, refuted and debunked on this very site, and my commitment to the Straight Dope quashed my sentimental leanings.
I am aware that the topic can get heated (and I am aware that certain individuals have pushed the limits of Forum propriety while others have maintined the decorum more appropriate to this Forum), but the thread, as a whole, has gotten unnecessarily rancorous and I do not see it proceeding anywhere useful, so I have decided that the rancor stops or the thread does.
Yet just so that we’re clear here the Comprehensive Report of the Special Advisor to the DCI on Iraq’s WMD
had this to say:
"ISG has uncovered no information to support allegations of Iraqi pursuit of uranium from abroad in the post-Operation Desert Storm era.
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. As part of its investigation, ISG sought information from prominent figures such as Ja’far Diya’ Ja’far—the head of the pre-1991 nuclear weapons program.
Regarding specific allegations of uranium pursuits from Niger, Ja’far claims that after 1998 Iraq had only two contacts with Niamey—neither of which involved uranium.
**So far, ISG has found only one offer of uranium to Baghdad since 1991—an approach Iraq appears to have turned down. **"
Thank you.
Likewise, I looked for it (for anything) in the Blix and CIA reports. The key phrases over and over were
No indication
No evidence of
None found
No capability.
There was no nuclear activity, no bilolgical, no WMD of any sort. If anything, the CIA report verified and vindicated the Blix report, and the Wilson report is the third report. This was not what the admin wanted to hear.
You quack me up.
Daniel
I refer my fellow hopeless wonks (you know who you are) to the estimable Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/. He uncovers some very salient points too lengthy and to cogent to summarize here. To tantalize the prurient interest of the reader would be unseemly, but if asked if the post references the involvement of journalistic paragon and man-ho extraordinaire Jeff Gannon, I would have to respond “I’ve heard that too”.
(At this point, the post is second from the top, this may change, so look for "July 15, 2005, begins with “Lets review some interesting connections…” To say the least…)
This unworthy one begs the illustrious to reflect that said canard was offered as a rhetorical device. The illustrious will recall that Gallileo used a similar device in his famous Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems (better than I, to be sure, who has only read it in translation…) The suggestion that one holds such views oneself wounds this humble soldier in the war on ignorance, and he implores relief.
Nonetheless, ours is but to cringe and obey. So let it be written, so let it be done.
MATTHEW COOPER: WHAT I TOLD THE GRAND JURY
There’s new Libby convo details too.
I doubt it was intentional, but if it was, that’s an incredibly subtle pun there.
Canard being the French word for duck.