If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Power Line Blog)   Remember Valerie Plame?   (powerlineblog.com) divider line 140
    More: Obvious, vice presidents, political thriller, Gigli  
•       •       •

5259 clicks; posted to Politics » on 15 May 2012 at 12:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



140 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-15 01:16:28 PM  

SphericalTime: What was Valerie Plame Wilson ever shown to have lied about? Wasn't just about everything she claimed eventually backed up?


No. For one, it was her husband that went on the "fact-finding" trip to Niger. He testified to Congress that the Iraqi Trade Minister had in fact visited the country, and his sources indicated that he was looking for yellowcake uranium. He later lied about his own findings in a published op-ed.

The Bush Administration didn't leak the name - Richard Armitage did. Armitage was in the State Department and opposed the war.

The statement in Bush's 2003 SOTU that was supposedly "discredited" by Wilson was in fact not based on his report (which would have corroborated it), but on separate British intelligence that was not disproved, and the British stood by.

Pretty much everything in the whole Plame affair was a lie - there was no campaign to "out" Plame, Bush didn't lie, etc. But the truth doesn't make a good movie or book deal, so the lies are still commonly spread.
 
2012-05-15 01:17:53 PM  

bdub77: How to spot crappy biased writing 101:

"You remember Valerie Plame, don't you? And her lying husband, Joseph Wilson? Weren't they going to make a movie about those two? If they did, it must have sunk like a stone, as I don't recall hearing anything about it-the Gigli of political thrillers. Valerie Plame, you'll recall, was the CIA employee who supposedly was "outed" as such by someone in the Bush administration. But it's not as though she was an agent in the field; she commuted to Langley every day from her home in the D.C. suburbs. So she was more or less "out" already. Nevertheless, the matter became a criminal case that absorbed the loony left for months."


Great, now you've done it. You've just given a master class in blogging for a new generation of derpers.
 
Ehh
2012-05-15 01:18:21 PM  
born_yesterday: Marcus Aurelius: I remember the PowerLine blog, and I also remember that it always sucks ass.

Seemed like a neutral, unbiased source concerned with critical analysis of the facts and straightforward delivery of imformation to me.

But then again, I just had a lobotomy.


Aaaand we're done here. *cranks the Ramones*
 
2012-05-15 01:18:43 PM  

WombatControl: SphericalTime: What was Valerie Plame Wilson ever shown to have lied about? Wasn't just about everything she claimed eventually backed up?

No. For one, it was her husband that went on the "fact-finding" trip to Niger. He testified to Congress that the Iraqi Trade Minister had in fact visited the country, and his sources indicated that he was looking for yellowcake uranium. He later lied about his own findings in a published op-ed.

The Bush Administration didn't leak the name - Richard Armitage did. Armitage was in the State Department and opposed the war.

The statement in Bush's 2003 SOTU that was supposedly "discredited" by Wilson was in fact not based on his report (which would have corroborated it), but on separate British intelligence that was not disproved, and the British stood by.

Pretty much everything in the whole Plame affair was a lie - there was no campaign to "out" Plame, Bush didn't lie, etc. But the truth doesn't make a good movie or book deal, so the lies are still commonly spread.


Well, I guess as long as you believe that, whatever helps you sleep at night.
 
2012-05-15 01:19:07 PM  
 
2012-05-15 01:22:04 PM  

WombatControl: No. For one, it was her husband that went on the "fact-finding" trip to Niger. He testified to Congress that the Iraqi Trade Minister had in fact visited the country, and his sources indicated that he was looking for yellowcake uranium. He later lied about his own findings in a published op-ed.
The Bush Administration didn't leak the name - Richard Armitage did. Armitage was in the State Department and opposed the war.
The statement in Bush's 2003 SOTU that was supposedly "discredited" by Wilson was in fact not based on his report (which would have corroborated it), but on separate British intelligence that was not disproved, and the British stood by.


Shut up! Your facts are clouding the narrative.
 
2012-05-15 01:22:06 PM  

EyeballKid: WombatControl: SphericalTime: What was Valerie Plame Wilson ever shown to have lied about? Wasn't just about everything she claimed eventually backed up?

No. For one, it was her husband that went on the "fact-finding" trip to Niger. He testified to Congress that the Iraqi Trade Minister had in fact visited the country, and his sources indicated that he was looking for yellowcake uranium. He later lied about his own findings in a published op-ed.

The Bush Administration didn't leak the name - Richard Armitage did. Armitage was in the State Department and opposed the war.

The statement in Bush's 2003 SOTU that was supposedly "discredited" by Wilson was in fact not based on his report (which would have corroborated it), but on separate British intelligence that was not disproved, and the British stood by.

Pretty much everything in the whole Plame affair was a lie - there was no campaign to "out" Plame, Bush didn't lie, etc. But the truth doesn't make a good movie or book deal, so the lies are still commonly spread.

Well, I guess as long as you believe that, whatever helps you sleep at night.


Oh really? Then instead of more drive-by snark, why don't you point out which statements are wrong, why they're wrong, and a source that provides evidence for your reasoning. Or is independent thought and research too much for you?
 
2012-05-15 01:22:43 PM  

bdub77: How to spot crappy biased writing 101:

"You remember Valerie Plame, don't you? And her lying husband, Joseph Wilson? Weren't they going to make a movie about those two? If they did, it must have sunk like a stone, as I don't recall hearing anything about it-the Gigli of political thrillers. Valerie Plame, you'll recall, was the CIA employee who supposedly was "outed" as such by someone in the Bush administration. But it's not as though she was an agent in the field; she commuted to Langley every day from her home in the D.C. suburbs. So she was more or less "out" already. Nevertheless, the matter became a criminal case that absorbed the loony left for months."


It just strikes you as odd because it's perspective is against the left. When the MSM writes articles just like this against the right, you think it's normal.

And Plame was never outed. Your job has to be a secret in the first place in order to be outed.
 
2012-05-15 01:23:30 PM  

WombatControl: EyeballKid: WombatControl: SphericalTime: What was Valerie Plame Wilson ever shown to have lied about? Wasn't just about everything she claimed eventually backed up?

No. For one, it was her husband that went on the "fact-finding" trip to Niger. He testified to Congress that the Iraqi Trade Minister had in fact visited the country, and his sources indicated that he was looking for yellowcake uranium. He later lied about his own findings in a published op-ed.

The Bush Administration didn't leak the name - Richard Armitage did. Armitage was in the State Department and opposed the war.

The statement in Bush's 2003 SOTU that was supposedly "discredited" by Wilson was in fact not based on his report (which would have corroborated it), but on separate British intelligence that was not disproved, and the British stood by.

Pretty much everything in the whole Plame affair was a lie - there was no campaign to "out" Plame, Bush didn't lie, etc. But the truth doesn't make a good movie or book deal, so the lies are still commonly spread.

Well, I guess as long as you believe that, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Oh really? Then instead of more drive-by snark, why don't you point out which statements are wrong, why they're wrong, and a source that provides evidence for your reasoning. Or is independent thought and research too much for you?


Remember folks, if you say a bunch of stupid shiat, and someone calls you on it, it is up to THEM to provide evidence. Not you. Ever.
 
2012-05-15 01:23:58 PM  

WombatControl: Oh really? Then instead of more drive-by snark, why don't you point out which statements are wrong, why they're wrong, and a source that provides evidence for your reasoning. Or is independent thought and research too much for you?


Yes, I must wait for Master Soros to send the marching orders via MSNBC...oh, wait, that's not it at all. You're just not worth the effort or the time.
 
2012-05-15 01:25:38 PM  
"Hey brah, whatever happened to that flight Abdul was on? Did it blow up?"

"What?! I can't hear you with all these hellfire missiles raining down!"

"I said, did Abdul go to Paradise by killing hundreds of people on that 777?"

"Um, I didn't see any news about it, but hey, don't sweat it. I'm sure he has a good explanation. Maybe he got bumped on his flight and forgot to call us. Anyway, all these new warnings about bombs and the targeted assassinations of our brothers... I'm sure that's all coincidence. He's a good guy. I hate to lose him on the volleyball team, but he would never betray us."

/I'm sure it was pretty obvious to AQ what happened
 
2012-05-15 01:26:29 PM  
And her lying husband, Joseph Wilson?

Yeah. The lies he told about the lack of a Niger yellowcake deal and about how there were no WMD programs in Iraq really blew up in Joe's face when all Saddam's weapons factories were.....

Oh. Nevermind.
 
2012-05-15 01:28:28 PM  

Jackson Herring: LincolnLogolas: I think it officially died when the Farkmins started greenlighting tweets.

Right, it was the tweets that did it in, not the lying troll headlines completely at odds with objective reality.


Careful; the squeaky wheel gets the banhammer!

Clicks-clicks-clicks! Gotta get 'em all!
 
2012-05-15 01:31:37 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: The extreme irony, of course, is that the Bush White House leaked Valerie Plame's name to discredit claims dunking their lies, and if memory serves, the right wing blogofoam crucified the Wilsons at that time too.


Not only that, after her possible identity was leaked, pro administration reporters called up sources (Cheney and Libby I believe) and they confirmed it - which is a huge security violation that should have led to criminal prosecution.
 
2012-05-15 01:33:27 PM  

WombatControl: SphericalTime: What was Valerie Plame Wilson ever shown to have lied about? Wasn't just about everything she claimed eventually backed up?

No. For one, it was her husband that went on the "fact-finding" trip to Niger. He testified to Congress that the Iraqi Trade Minister had in fact visited the country, and his sources indicated that he was looking for yellowcake uranium. He later lied about his own findings in a published op-ed.

The Bush Administration didn't leak the name - Richard Armitage did. Armitage was in the State Department and opposed the war.

The statement in Bush's 2003 SOTU that was supposedly "discredited" by Wilson was in fact not based on his report (which would have corroborated it), but on separate British intelligence that was not disproved, and the British stood by.

Pretty much everything in the whole Plame affair was a lie - there was no campaign to "out" Plame, Bush didn't lie, etc. But the truth doesn't make a good movie or book deal, so the lies are still commonly spread.


Honestly every time you post here the more convinced I get that you are a paid shill.
 
2012-05-15 01:35:31 PM  

EyeballKid: WombatControl: Oh really? Then instead of more drive-by snark, why don't you point out which statements are wrong, why they're wrong, and a source that provides evidence for your reasoning. Or is independent thought and research too much for you?

Yes, I must wait for Master Soros to send the marching orders via MSNBC...oh, wait, that's not it at all. You're just not worth the effort or the time.


Which means that you can't... because the way the Plame affair unfolded doesn't match the conventional left-wing narrative. So instead it's more drive-by snark in the hopes that someone might mistake that for an intelligent comment...
 
2012-05-15 01:37:25 PM  

WombatControl: EyeballKid: WombatControl: Oh really? Then instead of more drive-by snark, why don't you point out which statements are wrong, why they're wrong, and a source that provides evidence for your reasoning. Or is independent thought and research too much for you?

Yes, I must wait for Master Soros to send the marching orders via MSNBC...oh, wait, that's not it at all. You're just not worth the effort or the time.

Which means that you can't... because the way the Plame affair unfolded doesn't match the conventional left-wing narrative. So instead it's more drive-by snark in the hopes that someone might mistake that for an intelligent comment...


So what are your talking points for Scooter Libby?

Go!
 
2012-05-15 01:44:06 PM  
What the fark was that? If this is the kind of crap that modern Republicans read it's no wonder they all sound like retards.
 
2012-05-15 01:46:32 PM  

Ed Grubermann: they all sound like retards.


They don't just sound like retards, they are retards.
 
2012-05-15 01:49:01 PM  

WombatControl: No. For one, it was her husband that went on the "fact-finding" trip to Niger. He testified to Congress that the Iraqi Trade Minister had in fact visited the country, and his sources indicated that he was looking for yellowcake uranium. He later lied about his own findings in a published op-ed


I just went and read up about this. He actually testified that an Iraqi official had asked to visit Niger, but that the Nigerians had turned down the request. He speculated that the proposed meeting could have been about buying yellowcake uranium, but since the meeting never happened and the Nigerians refused to meet with the Iraqis, saying that "[The Iraqi Trade Minister] was looking for yellowcake uranium" is basically just making crap up.

WombatControl: The statement in Bush's 2003 SOTU that was supposedly "discredited" by Wilson was in fact not based on his report (which would have corroborated it), but on separate British intelligence that was not disproved, and the British stood by.


Can you provide some sort of support for this? That isn't an opinion piece?
 
2012-05-15 01:51:39 PM  
My IQ dropped 10 points just by reading the intro sentence.
 
2012-05-15 01:59:30 PM  
I read the first few sentences thinking it was going to come around to, "Just kidding," but it never did. It's just garden-variety, full-on Derp, and angry Derp at that.
 
2012-05-15 02:00:35 PM  

WombatControl: The Bush Administration didn't leak the name - Richard Armitage did. Armitage was in the State Department and opposed the war.


Eh, Richard Armitage was the Deputy Secretary of State - the second highest official at an executive branch Department. He was a part of the Bush Administration.

And while I buy the explanation that Richard Armitage disclosed it inadverdently, remember, Bob Novak had two Bush Administration sources - the other one being Karl Rove who confirmed the information and then proceeded to disclose it to a number of other parties. Oh, and don't forget Scooter Libby.
 
2012-05-15 02:02:29 PM  
Wow, that's a lot of work - and with flimsy evidence - to get to, "Your side is bad, too!" Wouldn't it be easier to clean up your own side?
 
2012-05-15 02:06:38 PM  

SphericalTime: WombatControl: The statement in Bush's 2003 SOTU that was supposedly "discredited" by Wilson was in fact not based on his report (which would have corroborated it), but on separate British intelligence that was not disproved, and the British stood by.

Can you provide some sort of support for this? That isn't an opinion piece?


Specifically, that the British stood by the intelligence?
 
2012-05-15 02:11:32 PM  
Would hit it.
 
2012-05-15 02:25:13 PM  

dg41: bdub77: How to spot crappy biased writing 101:

"loony left"

That's when I stopped reading.


Really? "Valerie Plame, you'll recall, was the CIA employee who supposedly was "outed" as such by someone in the Bush administration." Was as far as I got. Nice little piece of revisionist history there.
 
2012-05-15 02:30:23 PM  

DavidVincent: Insta-pundit = Neocon propraganda
I heard Tatsuma couldn't get a job there because he wasn't pro-Israel enough for them.


Instapundit is one person. A lawyer from Tn named Glen Reynolds.

Your comment makes no sense.
 
2012-05-15 02:30:28 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: I remember the PowerLine blog, and I also remember that it always sucks ass.


Is this another one of those ridiculous Right Wing blogs that claims to be balanced, yet is so slanted that it actually makes Fox News look like it is living up to the "Fair and Balanced" motto?
 
2012-05-15 02:31:36 PM  

vernonFL: If that really is her name.


Codename Caroline
 
2012-05-15 02:32:08 PM  

Bill_Wick's_Friend: And her lying husband, Joseph Wilson?

Yeah. The lies he told about the lack of a Niger yellowcake deal and about how there were no WMD programs in Iraq really blew up in Joe's face when all Saddam's weapons factories were.....

Oh. Nevermind.


I don't think the Iraqis ever managed to buy the yellowcake from Niger but they were trying.
 
2012-05-15 02:33:18 PM  
Remember Valerie Plame? That babe-alicious 40-ish hawty with more sex appeal than three young naked Hollywood starlets holding up a Playboy centerfold?
Sorry, my memory isn't good when I have a raging chubby.
 
2012-05-15 02:33:44 PM  

Halli: WombatControl: SphericalTime: What was Valerie Plame Wilson ever shown to have lied about? Wasn't just about everything she claimed eventually backed up?

No. For one, it was her husband that went on the "fact-finding" trip to Niger. He testified to Congress that the Iraqi Trade Minister had in fact visited the country, and his sources indicated that he was looking for yellowcake uranium. He later lied about his own findings in a published op-ed.

The Bush Administration didn't leak the name - Richard Armitage did. Armitage was in the State Department and opposed the war.

The statement in Bush's 2003 SOTU that was supposedly "discredited" by Wilson was in fact not based on his report (which would have corroborated it), but on separate British intelligence that was not disproved, and the British stood by.

Pretty much everything in the whole Plame affair was a lie - there was no campaign to "out" Plame, Bush didn't lie, etc. But the truth doesn't make a good movie or book deal, so the lies are still commonly spread.

Honestly every time you post here the more convinced I get that you are a paid shill.


He's pretty much dead on the money with his fact list. Have you got any references that dispute them?
 
2012-05-15 02:36:59 PM  

CujoQuarrel: He's pretty much dead on the money with his fact list. Have you got any references that dispute them?


It's already been done in this thread. Just look at sphericaltime's post.

Also I still haven't gotten an answer to a simple question.

What about Scooter Libby?
 
2012-05-15 02:39:03 PM  
I would say "your blog sucks," but that would be an understatement for how pathetic that was.

You're blog drinks festering ass-juice.
 
2012-05-15 02:41:47 PM  

WombatControl: Pretty much everything in the whole Plame affair was a lie - there was no campaign to "out" Plame, Bush didn't lie, etc.


I'm very proud that you are so high functioning. I've always wondered: Do you have to wear the helmet all of the time, or only when you're on the bus?
 
2012-05-15 02:45:47 PM  

Don't Troll Me Bro!: I would say "your blog sucks," but that would be an understatement for how pathetic that was.

You're blog drinks festering ass-juice.


An expressed anal gland cocktail as it were - with extra cock.
 
2012-05-15 02:49:44 PM  
The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. ~ 2003 State of the Union speech, U.S. President George W. Bush
 
2012-05-15 02:58:11 PM  

SphericalTime: SphericalTime: WombatControl: The statement in Bush's 2003 SOTU that was supposedly "discredited" by Wilson was in fact not based on his report (which would have corroborated it), but on separate British intelligence that was not disproved, and the British stood by.

Can you provide some sort of support for this? That isn't an opinion piece?

Specifically, that the British stood by the intelligence?


FactCheck.org has a decent summary of the facts.

Specifically, the Butler Report vindicates the statements in Bush's 2003 SOTU:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible. . . .

By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded.


The U.S. Senate investigation found the same thing - that Mohammad Saeed al-Shahaf visited Niger in 1999 seeking a trade deal to get uranium, and that the Hussein regime had attempted to strike a deal after that. In fact, the Senate specifically found that Amb. Wilson's report made the intelligence community more likely to believe that the Iraqis were looking for uranium in Niger.
 
2012-05-15 03:03:07 PM  
I remember when Subby's mother, in an act of penance, got down on her hands and knees and promised god that she would have a Lexington Steele/Mandingo/Shane Diesel train run on her only on days that end with the letter Y.

Yeah. I remember that.
 
2012-05-15 03:07:12 PM  

WombatControl: Specifically, the Butler Report vindicates the statements in Bush's 2003 SOTU:


FTA; "None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn't have been part of Bush's speech.

But what he said - that Iraq sought uranium - is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying."

Also the Butler report was widely criticized as whitewash for Tony Blair.
 
2012-05-15 03:08:35 PM  
mjcdn.motherjones.com

I remember that biatch!
 
2012-05-15 03:17:08 PM  

Halli: WombatControl: Specifically, the Butler Report vindicates the statements in Bush's 2003 SOTU:

FTA; "None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn't have been part of Bush's speech.

But what he said - that Iraq sought uranium - is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying."

Also the Butler report was widely criticized as whitewash for Tony Blair.


The Butler Report was quite thorough - the record is clear, Mohammad Saaed al-Shahaf was in Niger in 1999 - nobody disputes that. The only export of any importance from Niger is uranium. What Bush said at the time was correct, and while the CIA and the White House backpedled from the claims, the British never did.

There were some apparently faked documents which also said that Iraq was seeking uranium that were sent throught the Italians. But the British never saw those papers.

The facts surrounding the affair are very complicated, but the end result is that Bush was not lying in 2003. In fact, the record shows that Iraq really was trying to get uranium from Niger, but they never got terrifically far. Still, just trying to obtain uranium put Iraq in violation of the Gulf War cease-fire.
 
2012-05-15 03:22:10 PM  

WombatControl: Specifically, the Butler Report vindicates the statements in Bush's 2003 SOTU:


The Butler Report is rebutted by, of course:

The British Foreign Affairs Committee Report
noting "We conclude that it is very odd indeed that the Government asserts that it was not relying on the evidence which has since been shown to have been forged, but that eight months later it is still reviewing the other evidence. The assertion "... that Iraq sought the supply of significant amounts of uranium from Africa ..." should have been qualified to reflect the uncertainty."

The International Atomic Energy Agency
Director General ElBaradai's testimony to the UN Security Council: "Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence if it emerges relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials."

And the CIA, on multiple occasions.
 
2012-05-15 03:22:34 PM  

Diogenes: Some evidence beyond " leak that very well may have come out of the White House for political gain" would be appreciated.


Well, several British intelligence source were on record saying the White house personally demanded arrests in the case, despite protests that those would be extremely premature, and White House sources said the arrests were meant to bolster the primary chances of close White House ally Joe Lieberman.

No, wait, that was the "liquid bomb plot" during the Bush Administration
 
2012-05-15 03:23:57 PM  

WombatControl: SphericalTime: SphericalTime: WombatControl: The statement in Bush's 2003 SOTU that was supposedly "discredited" by Wilson was in fact not based on his report (which would have corroborated it), but on separate British intelligence that was not disproved, and the British stood by.

Can you provide some sort of support for this? That isn't an opinion piece?

Specifically, that the British stood by the intelligence?

FactCheck.org has a decent summary of the facts.

Specifically, the Butler Report vindicates the statements in Bush's 2003 SOTU:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible. . . .

By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded.

The U.S. Senate investigation found the same thing - that Mohammad Saeed al-Shahaf visited Niger in 1999 seeking a trade deal to get uranium, and that the Hussein regime had attempted to strike a deal after that. In fact, the Senate specifically found that Amb. Wilson's report made the intelligence community more likely to believe that the Iraqis were looking for uranium in Niger.


Weird. That factcheck.org page explicitly says the following:

FTA: "None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff."

Here's another section:

FTA: The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.

The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen.


Granted, the article does say "the CIA disagreed" with him, but it never gives any supporting evidence for why they disagreed or who at the CIA was disagreeing. It just says "analysts" disagreed. Who is that supposed to be? Why didn't they believe the report of the guy on the ground (Wilson)?

Here's another bit:

FTA: Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.

Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad."


Well, that's weird, isn't it. You say the information was based on British intelligence that was never repudiated, but your article makes it clear that the British reports were based on speculation that Wilson himself investigated and found baseless. Documentation didn't happen until afterward, and even then the speech wasn't based on fake documents, but it seems to have been based on no documents whatsoever. Indeed, if anything it was based on unsubstantiated speculation (granted "credible" speculation) by the CIA.
 
2012-05-15 03:25:32 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: So the Obama administration, desperate to revive its sagging re-election hopes, deliberately put the life of a British agent in jeopardy

Yes, because this information COULD have come from the White House, it MUST have come from the White House, and it MUST have been Obama that leaked it personally.

What a moron.


Well and there is the slight factual problem that the double agent was NOT British but Saudi, he was born in Britain but he was recruited by the Saudis
 
2012-05-15 03:34:13 PM  
Oh, and here's the weird thing about the claim of Iraq going to Niger to buy uranium.

Niger has two uranium mines. They are both completely under the control of a French conglomerate and represent French interests.

Even if Iraq went to Niger to buy uranium, they wouldn't be able to get any because Niger doesn't have the mines to give that uranium to them.
 
2012-05-15 03:37:36 PM  
Got two sentances in and closed the tab.

rlv.zcache.com
 
2012-05-15 03:38:17 PM  
sentences, even
 
Displayed 50 of 140 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report