Plame to sue- cheney-rove and scooter

[cromagnum]

I don't know if I would totally say that. 

 

My fuzzy memory recalls that while the documents you cite were total forgeries, they weren't the basis of the yellow cake claim.  IIRC, the British intelligence was the source for the yellowcake story and they stand by their account.

724519[/snapback]

I remember that, but wasn't there a retraction of those 16 words after the fact?

[Kelly the Dog]

I don't know if I would totally say that. 

 

My fuzzy memory recalls that while the documents you cite were total forgeries, they weren't the basis of the yellow cake claim.  IIRC, the British intelligence was the source for the yellowcake story and they stand by their account.

724519[/snapback]

It was the same issue and the same alleged meeting that has zero substantiation, and the same alleged meeting that the Bush Administration admits they shouldn't have mentioned. The same people that at that time didn't admit to anything. The Brits have simply always kept saying we stand by it but there is no evidence of it and they won't provide it and Tenet said his people believe it never happened. And even if it did, there is zero evidence anywhere, even by the Brits, that there was any follow-up on it. In fact, there is ample evidence that there was never anything done about it. In other words, there is a Bush administration and George Tenet refuted possibility one guy from Niger MAY have spoken to one guy from Iraq about the possibility of yellow cake and then both decided against talking about it or going further with it after that meeting.

 

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507270002

 

 

Claim #3: Wilson "did a lousy job" in his investigation

 

Hyman stated that Wilson "did a lousy job" investigating the allegations of an Iraq-Niger uranium deal, because Wilson found no evidence of such a deal -- despite a later British report that found "[the British] yellowcake [uranium] report was valid." While the British Butler reportPDF file on pre-war assessments of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction capabilities did conclude that British claims of an Iraq-Niger uranium deal were "well founded" based on "intelligence assessments at the time," the report failed to identify the basis for these "intelligence assessments" and produced no new evidence that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa. Moreover, the Senate Intelligence Committee reportPDF file and a statement by then-Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet flatly contradicted the British claims. In his statement, Tenet asserted that the "16 words" regarding the alleged uranium deal "should never have been included" in Bush's State of the Union address. In September 2004, the CIA's Iraq Survey Group stated that it had "not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad" at any point following the 1991 Gulf War.

Emphasis mine. "Well founded" based on "intelligence assessments at the time."

 

Furthermore, the whole idea was about the Iraqis "maybe interested" in buying yellowcake. Wilson's story that SilverNRed above confirmed the reports was based on a Nigerian guy saying that in 1999 he was asked to look into "expanding commerical relations." The intelligence guys apparently assumed this meant "selling yellowcake", at an upcoming meeting. The Iraqis had the meeting with the Nigerians and the subject never came up at all. That's the extent of the wanting to buy yellowcake. A guy says he was asked to look into it and then never looked into it and wasn't ever asked about it at the meeting. The confirmation was that the Iraqis may have been interested. But apparently they weren't, which is what Wilson found.

[GG]

Furthermore, the whole idea was about the Iraqis "maybe interested" in buying yellowcake. Wilson's story that SilverNRed above confirmed the reports was based on a Nigerian guy saying that in 1999 he was asked to look into "expanding commerical relations." The intelligence guys apparently assumed this meant "selling yellowcake", at an upcoming meeting. The Iraqis had the meeting with the Nigerians and the subject never came up at all. That's the extent of the wanting to buy yellowcake. A guy says he was asked to look into it and then never looked into it and wasn't ever asked about it at the meeting. The confirmation was that the Iraqis may have been interested. But apparently they weren't, which is what Wilson found.

724552[/snapback]

 

I'm guessing that few people read the Congressional committee report, which is linked above. I urge you to take a look at the committee's findings on p. 46, which suggests that CIA didn't find Wilson's reporting to have added much, although they found it interesting that Nigerians admitted that an IRAQI DELEGATION (not just some guy) traveled to Niger in 1999, and that the "Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing Uranium...."

 

I also urge evryone to read the conclusions on P. 72. (Esp Conclusion No. 13)

 

Interesting that folks are much more forgiving of Joe Wilson's "memory lapses."

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm guessing that few people read the Congressional committee report, which is linked above.  I urge you to take a look at the committee's findings on p. 46, which suggests that CIA didn't find Wilson's reporting to have added much, although they found it interesting that Nigerians admitted that an IRAQI DELEGATION (not just some guy) traveled to Niger in 1999, and that the "Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing Uranium...."

 

I also urge evryone to read the conclusions on P. 72. (Esp Conclusion No. 13)

 

Interesting that folks are much more forgiving of Joe Wilson's "memory lapses."

724780[/snapback]

I read it before and just recently, too. And there is zero evidence that they ever did. The prime Minister was the source of all this and believed it. But he didnt mention it and they never mentioned it to him and then apparently never sought it. That is quite different from "Saddam Hussein recently sought uranium from Africa." In fact, it's quite the opposite. It's people believing he may have but he never did.

[GG]

I read it before and just recently, too. And there is zero evidence that they ever did. The prime Minister was the source of all this and believed it. But he didnt mention it and they never mentioned it to him and then apparently never sought it. That is quite different from "Saddam Hussein recently sought uranium from Africa." In fact, it's quite the opposite. It's people believing he may have but he never did.

724798[/snapback]

 

 

We'll probably never agree on this, because we're looking at it from hindsight. But a lie is different than not having all the facts checked.

 

In any event, the people who believe that those 16 words are the sole justification of the decision to go into Iraq, are the polar opposites of the ones that think that it would be neato to start bombing Iran right now.

[SilverNRed]

This is exactly why it's so laughably disingenuous and stupid. You're using the exact same kind of embarrassing refutal which isn't a refutal at all that I am talking about. Like, for example, Joe Wilson lied about when the reports were found to be complete forgeries. He said he knew they were complete forgeries eight months before it was determined they were complete forgeries. So what. They were complete forgeries. I am not talking about whatever the slimeball Wilson says, and how he made himself out to be some sort or martyr. I'm talking about the actual case and what he actually found and what the Bush administration did, which was to imply and say there was a Nigerian attempt to sell yellow cake to Iraq when there is zero evidence of that. What there is is refuted and unsubstantiated evidence that some citizen of Niger MAY have had some brief and unacted upon communication with some citizen of Iraq. But nothing ever became of it and the Bush adminstration itself refutes ever happening.

724420[/snapback]

I'm mainly talking about Joe Wilson who you yourself just stated is a "slimeball." He did not say they were forgeries 8 months before it was determined they were forgeries, he stated he knew they were forgeries 8 months before we even had the documents. He's a liar. He crafted this entire fable about how he worked to discredit the case that Iraq sought uranium and that he's now a martyr because people conspired to expose his wife's job (which "destroyed" their lives by making them celebrities and landing them million dollar book deals). He gets a little more important in the story every time he tells the story.

 

The case for Iraq seeking uranium is NOT all about Joe Wilson; he's basically a nobody. GG's factcheck.org link is a pretty good summary of that situation. And he correctly points out that the "16 words" were not nearly as important in the case for the war as some people now (Joe Wilson, notably, among them) would like us to believe.

[Kelly the Dog]

I'm mainly talking about Joe Wilson who you yourself just stated is a "slimeball."  He did not say they were forgeries 8 months before it was determined they were forgeries, he stated he knew they were forgeries 8 months before we even had the documents.  He's a liar.  He crafted this entire fable about how he worked to discredit the case that Iraq sought uranium and that he's now a martyr because people conspired to expose his wife's job (which "destroyed" their lives by making them celebrities and landing them million dollar book deals).  He gets a little more important in the story every time he tells the story.

 

The case for Iraq seeking uranium is NOT all about Joe Wilson; he's basically a nobody.  GG's factcheck.org link is a pretty good summary of that situation.  And he correctly points out that the "16 words" were not nearly as important in the case for the war as some people now (Joe Wilson, notably, among them) would like us to believe.

725084[/snapback]

Wilson misspoke and got the dates wrong, but what he said was right. He said there was no there there and there was no there there. He knew when he got back from the mission that Iraq was not seeking uranium from Niger and that is what he reported and that is what happened. And he said the administration used information they knew to be wrong and the administration used information they were told by their own people they had serious doubts about, that proved to be wrong, as well as misleading the public. Saying "Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa" was a huge stretch that they didn't know to be true even before the forgeries. Again, they themselves to this day, an administration that doesn't admit anything, admits it was wrong to say it and it's not true. Basically everything Wilson reported was right not wrong, regardless of whether he wants to get his name in the news.

[GG]

Wilson misspoke and got the dates wrong, but what he said was right. He said there was no there there and there was no there there. He knew when he got back from the mission that Iraq was not seeking uranium from Niger and that is what he reported and that is what happened. And he said the administration used information they knew to be wrong and the administration used information they were told by their own people they had serious doubts about, that proved to be wrong, as well as misleading the public. Saying "Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa" was a huge stretch that they didn't know to be true even before the forgeries. Again, they themselves to this day, an administration that doesn't admit anything, admits it was wrong to say it and it's not true. Basically everything Wilson reported was right not wrong, regardless of whether he wants to get his name in the news.

725225[/snapback]

 

Amazing how two people can read the same thing and come to a different conclusion. After reading the Commission report and factcheck, it is far from conclusive that at the time of the SoU address the administration knew that the 16 words were wrong. If anything, the intelligence from CIA at that time was strongly leaning to Iraq's interest in uranium.

 

I'm not going to deny that there was an urge by Bush to paint Saddam in the worst possible light, but after the extensive bipartisan investigation, there was no there there either in admin's attempt to intentionally twist facts. All intelligence pointed to the uranium interest by Saddam, along with hidden WMDs.

 

The most humorous charge is Wilson saying that admin mislead the public, when he's the one who chose to step out in a very public forum to say that he was sent by Cheney's office to investigate the Niger claims and that he had presented clear evidence that there was no there there. I wonder why he got tossed under the bus by Dems who recognized that he lied about those minor tidbits.

[Kelly the Dog]

Amazing how two people can read the same thing and come to a different conclusion.  After reading the Commission report and factcheck, it is far from conclusive that at the time of the SoU address the administration knew that the 16 words were wrong.  If anything, the intelligence from CIA at that time was strongly leaning to Iraq's interest in uranium.

 

I'm not going to deny that there was an urge by Bush to paint Saddam in the worst possible light, but after the extensive bipartisan investigation, there was no there there either in admin's attempt to intentionally twist facts.  All intelligence pointed to the uranium interest by Saddam, along with hidden WMDs. 

 

The most humorous charge is Wilson saying that admin mislead the public, when he's the one who chose to step out in a very public forum to say that he was sent by Cheney's office to investigate the Niger claims and that he had presented clear evidence that there was no there there.  I wonder why he got tossed under the bus by Dems who recognized that he lied about those minor tidbits.

725857[/snapback]

I equate it to Clinton saying "I did not have sexual relations with that woman." Technically, he's right, and it's not a lie. But in the real world it's a total lie and he knew what he as saying and was 99% disingenuous. Technically, it is not a pure lie to say that "British Intelligence reported Saddam Hussein sought uranium". They did "report" it. But saying it makes it sound like Saddam was actively pursuing it himself and is close to making a nuke, and they knew that not to be true. But they said it anyway. And again, just think for a sec about how this administration operates. It had to be something seriously wrong with the intelligence for them to admit themselves and to this day admit that it shouldn't have been in there.

[GG]

It had to be something serious wrong with it for them to admit themselves and to this day admit that it shouldn't have been in there.

725950[/snapback]

 

whatsamattayou? Hangover today?

 

On July 7, [2003] the day after Wilson's original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them "incorrect:"

 

    Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing :

 

    Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now.

 

That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech:

 

    Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written

    for the President.

 

.........

 

The final word on the 16 words may have to await history's judgment. The Butler report's conclusion that British intelligence was "credible" clearly doesn't square with what US intelligence now believes. But these new reports show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said, even if British intelligence is eventually shown to be mistaken.

[Kelly the Dog]

whatsamattayou?  Hangover today?

725969[/snapback]

So this was the day after the original Wilson article? Doesn't that mean this was also eight months before the documents were shown to be forgeries?

[GG]

So this was the day after the original Wilson article? Doesn't that mean this was also eight months before the documents were shown to be forgeries?

725982[/snapback]

 

Just because it didn't reach our ears, didn't mean that they didn't say it prior to 8 months. Could it be that Wilson's coming out party roused the press? Fleisher briefing

 

ps - 8 months after the fact does not quite equate to "to this day"

[Terry Tate]

1. Does Plame's lawsuit have merit?

 

2. If her claim is true, is there a snowball's chance that a jury would find in her favor?

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

1. Does Plame's lawsuit have merit?

 

Probably not. I suspect the VP's senior enough that he can change the status of a CIA officer on a whim, which makes her point moot.

 

2. If her claim is true, is there a snowball's chance that a jury would find in her favor?

726032[/snapback]

 

I don't see how a jury wouldn't find in her favor. What jury wouldn't jump on a chance to stick it to The Man?

[Kelly the Dog]

Just because it didn't reach our ears, didn't mean that they didn't say it prior to 8 months.  Could it be that Wilson's coming out party roused the press?  Fleisher briefing

 

ps - 8 months after the fact does not quite equate to "to this day" 

726019[/snapback]

I meant "to this day" meaning to this day they didn't retract their retraction of that shouldn't have been in the SOTU. Apparently they knew they were wrong before everyone knew they were wrong, but dnt come public until Wilson did. And then people bashed Wilson for saying he knew they were forgeries eight months before proof of the forgeries came out. But if Ari retracted the 16 words statement the day after Wilson's article came out, that was also eight months before the forgeries became public. That's what I meant, anyway.

[cromagnum]

I also urge evryone to read the conclusions on P. 72. (Esp Conclusion No. 13)

 

Interesting that folks are much more forgiving of Joe Wilson's "memory lapses."

724780[/snapback]

____________________________________________________________________

 

Rememeber when Condoleeza was on Meet The Press and tim asked her why did bush use those 16 words in the SOTU, when 4 months before in cincinatti he didn't use the yellow cake story as the cia told him not to.. Yet at the SOTU 4 months later he uses those 16 words...

 

She says tim he forgot!! What kind of excuse is that and why would she say that, if the brit intel is the solid evidence that backs up those words.. Any ideas? curious.