Those cites did not, even on their face, support your position – i.e., that Hussein was trying to acquire yellowcake uranium from Nigeria when Wilson went to investigate. In fact, he was not, and Wilson told the truth on that point and was punished for it.
This is not about politics first, the main point remains: Was your political point based on the facts?
Clearly your original jab has been demonstrated to be a lie. As well your assertions about Wilson, there is nothing political about that. Now investigating why you got suckered into believing it, that is the political angle.
Every one here loves this gun. Cherishes it, in fact. Loves to hate it. Can’t live without it. It’s force of imprisoment or death, and yet we abide by it. You think you own it but you know you don’t. What price will you pay to get a piece of it?
Out of interest, how is it you’re determining this? I mean, how would you tell the difference between *people disagreeing because they don’t like your politics * and people disagreeing because they think the argument is shitty? What would people need to do in order to convince you that they were disagreeing in good faith? I ask this seriously.
If you want to argue the fact the Wilson was standing there when the uranium was being loaded onto the truck for Iraq, then I will argue that point.
I was hoping for more than that.
Karl Rove was right. The real story about Joseph C. Wilson IV was not that Bush lied about Saddam seeking uranium in Africa; the story was Clown Wilson and his paper-pusher wife, Valerie Plame. By foisting their fantasies of themselves on the country, these two have instigated a massive criminal investigation, the result of which is: The only person who has demonstrably lied and possibly broken the law is Joseph Wilson.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter071405.asp
So the obvious solution is to fire Karl Rove.
Clown Wilson thrust himself on the nation in July 2003 when he wrote an op-ed for The New York Times claiming Bush had lied in his State of the Union address. He said Bush was referring to Wilson’s own “report” when Bush said: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”
Oh well.
But that is not what Wilson says he found! Thus, his column had the laughably hubristic title, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa.” (Once I couldn’t find my car for hours after a Dead show. I call the experience: “What I Didn’t Find in San Francisco.”)
Driven by that weird obsession liberals have of pretending they are Republicans in order to attack Republicans, Wilson implied he had been sent to Niger by Vice President Dick Cheney. Among copious other references to Cheney in the op-ed, Wilson said that CIA “officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story” that Saddam Hussein had attempted to buy uranium from Niger, “so they could provide a response to the vice president’s office.”
My dog was skunked a couple of weeks back. Up until now I thought that was the worst spewing of stink I’d ever experience.
I’d welcome you to the boards, but it would be a lie. You’re as worthless as some of the other fucknuts we already have here, making you both worthless and redundant. So I’d rather you just fuck off.
Soon Clown Wilson was going around claiming: “The office of the vice president, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked, and that response was based upon my trip out there.”
Dick Cheney responded by saying: “I don’t know Joe Wilson. I’ve never met Joe Wilson. I don’t know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back.” Clown Wilson’s allegation that Cheney had received his (unwritten) “report” was widely repeated as fact by, among others, The New York Times.
No, we want you come up with proof that Hussein was trying to acquire uranium from Niger at all, which you have not, and neither has anyone else.
I copied that straight off of the Ann Coulter website. All of the references and cites are listed at the address that I gave. But… that simply has no grounds in a moonbat conversation and so I guess the arguments can’t be made if all of the opposing facts are to be thrown out on the grounds that they are … opposing. Nice argument gentlemen.
To what was W referring, then?
None of your cites to date are from Coulter’s website.
If it’s strictly a matter of Cheney’s word against Wilson’s, I hope not even you would dispute Wilson has more credibility. So would a resurrected Baron Munchausen.
That is not the point, the point is that they lied.
Fell into that, that is not the point, the media you rely on did not tell the truth.
The political environment has now people dying and lying to preserve that state of affairs, you bet it is a damn good time (very late thanks to the Republicans that did not bother to investigate seriously) to get many of them under oath.
You are also forgetting that on many past investigations the republicans did not put anyone in the Bush administration under oath. You are also forgetting they did spend the money anyhow to to have the hearings on 9/11 and oil with people testifying with no oaths, now that was indeed a waste.
Here is a site that has Mr Wilson’s op ed in the NY Times.
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0706-02.htm
He said no such thing.
Not even that, now you are lying.
And what else would you have Joe Wilson say after all hell broke loose on the liberal witch hunt that he, in the end got? That was dated past the original references.
If you want to make it an argument on the facts, then Jow Wilsons press release after the fact is not what we were looking for.
Your request of me was that I place him in nigeria at the time and that the sales were happening, and I think I did.