This fella certainly makes it seem as if the Bush Admin had ample opportunity to know better about the Nigerien forgeries. The CIA is adamant that they sent a cable and informed the White House. Debate:
Do you think that this and the related revelations about the “when” of the WH’s knowledge will be sufficient to puncture the plausible deniability of the WH and do you think that the American electorate will care?
IMHO,
Plausible deniability certainly hasn’t been punctured, but it will have to be called in to play.
I don’t think that any signifigant number of Americans will care.
History books will record these things and future generations will look back and say, “WTF?” while doing something more or less like themselves.
Thank you for your contibution, Collounsbury. :rolleyes:
For all the things that the administration could have said, this was one of the dumbest. They knew it was dishonest, and now it has been thoroughly debunked.
I wish they had just said that we were going to kick Saddam in the teeth. Anything would have been preferable to stuff like this.
I feel pretty much the same way about it. I wish that more Americans seemed concerned. I suspect that it won’t make even a hill of beans though.
With all that there is available for anyone who can Google, I wonder about what there is for some one who has professional level access to various bits of info and docs.
You’re very welcome. Would you like an ice cream as well?
Well blind ideologues do tend to get themselves in binds.
Actually a rationally concieved and executed strategy would have been even more preferable.
However, that aside, we still get down to the fact that there is an occupation that is going rather badly, and needs to be fixed right quick. The duplicity of the pretexts should be quite clear to anyone but the usual suspect.
I’d love to, but don’t. I think he’ll get away with it.
Case in point: when experts raised doubts about the dreaded mobile labs, GeeDubya blithely ignored them. They didn’t exist, they never spoke, he asserted in the Polish interviews that the WMD’s had been found, case closed. He avoids open press conferences like Dracula avoids sunlight, he cannot be made to answer. And he won’t.
Now, of course, they are attempting to lower the bar one more time, now, we are looking for weapons “programs”. Any document, however dubioius, any piece of equipment, any testimony whatsoever will be held aloft like the Holy Grail.
Most likely, he’ll skate. Has so far, with evidence piled up to the rafters.
I’ve a question. The OP’s article mentions “allegations of sales of uranium to Iraq”, which the Ambassador felt she had debunked.
The State Department’s fact sheet mentions Iraq’s “efforts to procure uranium from Niger.” Does this envoy state that Iraq had never attempted to buy uranium?
I don’t know where that might lead, Tee. After all, uranium does have its uses other than as a source of nuclear fuel. The question might only arise if Iraq had attempted to buy enough uranium to plausibly refine to weapons grade U-235, which most likely could not have avoided scrutiny, as witness the quote above: “For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger’s uranium business.”
AFAIK,
The envoy merely says that the report that he was sent to investigate came up severely lacking. He doesn’t address the whole of Iraq’s potential activities.
There may be other evidence out there that suggests that Iraq tried to buy uranium, but it hasn’t been presented anywhere that I know of.
The parties who have examined the documents in question say that the documents were forgeries. I don’t think that any one is making claims about “never.” All that these people appear to be discussing is the evidence that actually is available for discussion.
It appears that there is no other evidence, (other than the debunked forgeries), of Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium from Niger. At least none that’s come forth.
If you know about some other evidence or set(s) of evidence, please introduce it for our perusal.
Mr. Wilson’s wording says, “allegations of sales” and the State Dept says, “hiding their uranium procurement.” I’d say that they are both still talking about the same thing.
So one can see why the CIA thinks someone should go to Niger to investigate. Evidently Niger was not selling any to Iraq. But here is the CIA later, October 2002, stating: “he remains intent on acquiring them” and suggesting the possibility of acquiring material from abroad. It’s a fair question I think.
I would like an ice cream. Coconut? That’s my favorite. I want a motorcycle with a sidecar so I can take my daughter out for ice cream in it, but my wife doesn’t like the idea.
I think going for ice cream in a sidecar would just about be the ultimate in coolness. The issue has been weighing heavily on my mind.
What do you think?
Anyway, so we’re talking about this Niger/Uranium thing again, huh?
So let’s see. What’s new here.
The report still was not accurate. Well, that’s a surprise.
People were still saying it wasn’t accurate before it got used.
Some people were still saying it was accurate.
Administration officials still deny they fucked up, say it was an honest mistake, and try to put as good a face on it as they can.
Is that about it?
I wonder what it would take to convince strong Bush supporters that Administrative lying about affairs of State is not acceptable. The fact that they used information that they knew to be false indicates to me that they knew ahead of time that they could not persuade either the American public or the UN with just the truth.
How many servicemen and women and journalists and Iraqis have to die before we know the real reason we are there? (And I’m not just talking about speculation.)
I truly would feel this way no matter what the party affiliations of the liars are.
Airman, I can’t imagine how those of you who have served in Iraq must feel knowing that your lives were put on the line for as yet undetermined reasons.
