or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CHENEY: Criticize me and you don't support the troops
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

CHENEY: Criticize me and you don't support the troops - Page 5

post #161 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
Why be hung up on the SIC report? It doesn't even touch on 1/8th of what went on.

That's just not true.

First of all, there was a concerted effort by DoD officials and the VP's office to come up with "evidence," and it didn't matter how shaky or far-fetched, that boosted their case.

Secondly, there was no shortage of CIA folks who were openly critical of the BS, both through leaks and through folks no longer with the agency. It's a myth that intelligence agencies interpreted the intel the way the admin presented it, and even a cursory look at the public record shows this.

On top of that, as I've mentioned a bunch of times, there is a mountain of statements from admin officials that are clearly and unmistakably fabrications and exaggerations.

The fact is that everyone was subjected to the same PR campaign. "Groupthink" played a role, but not in the simple "well everyone thought x, y, z," because it's crystal clear that it's not true. Not everyone thought it. Not even the administration. It's clear that they dealt with the information in a purposefully deceitful way.

If you like reading reports, read the UNMOVIC reports. For every admin claim that "saddam is dangerous because the UN says he has [insert agent/chemical/nuke]," the UN reports show that the claim is greatly exaggerated or fabricated. This has been the case from the beginning.

The reason people like me were able to view the situation objectively and correctly is because we actually looked at the details and not the grand, sweeping statements.

I think you're right on a lot of that -- leaks, what Blix was saying, etc. but in the end that had to be held up against the finished U.S. intelligence product.

Oh, and lest your head get too big for your hat, remember, a stopped watch is right twice a day, too.

Laugh, dammit.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #162 of 191
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
The reason people like me were able to view the situation objectively and correctly is because we actually looked at the details and not the grand, sweeping statements.

I think you hit on a very important point here. The American people generally don't immerse themselves in the minutia and rely on what gets reported on their local news. And it truly is the "grand, sweeping statement" that this administration is the most guilty of making.

Mushroom clouds. Enriched uranium from Africa. UAVs. Reconstituted nuclear program. Mobil labs.

If you really distill all this down, we basically went to war over a couple aluminum tubes.

That doesn't mean that Nick doesn't make a couple points about the evidence Clinton had collected in drafting his policy resolution. Saddam was always going to a nuisance and not having in power was always a good thing.

The fundamental difference in ideology here is whether or not you believe the price we paid in blood and treasure was worth it. To me, personally, that's a resound NO.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #163 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
but in the end that had to be held up against the finished U.S. intelligence product.

No it wasn't. This war was never decided by anyone dealing with "finished U.S. intelligence product." Not congress, not the admin and not the public.
Quote:
Oh, and lest your head get too big for your hat, remember, a stopped watch is right twice a day, too.

But it's perfectly clear that's not the case if you look at the details. The details have always told the same story. Don't forget that. The strongest argument from the admin was always that the claims weren't borne out in the facts because the important facts were "unknown." Of course, no one denied that there were things we didn't know, but it was abundantly, not slightly, clear after looking at the details that it was physically impossible for those unknowns to add up to anything remotely resembling what the admin was claiming.

And in the end, the fact is that we could check at the time and see that the admin was making stuff up. They made specific claims that were simply not true, and we could see them at the time. When bush said "I saw an IAEA report that says Iraq will have nukes in 6 months," we could actually look and see that no such report existed. And it went on like this throughout the end of 2002 and 2003.
post #164 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
And in the end, the fact is that we could check at the time and see that the admin was making stuff up.

Wouldn't that be the sort of thing you would find in that SIC report, though? Hyped, of course, but made up?

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #165 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Wouldn't that be the sort of thing you would find in that SIC report, though? Hyped, of course, but made up?

Hey dmz, do you know why the Senate Dems shut down the Senate for an afternoon a few weeks ago? It was over this issue. Looking into that might answer your question here.
post #166 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I did notice that. What you didn't notice is that we supported regime change because the intelligence showed Saddam had WMD's

Your point?

Quote:
If you don't want them pointed out, then don't add them to the discussion.

Actually, they do need to be pointed out.

Quote:
I didn't say that. Please show where Clinton concludes that Saddam does not have WMD's and thus the next administration must "lie" and cook the data to draw that conclusion.

Dude, I QUOTED YOU: "Clinton's conclusion that we ought to invade was the same which makes it hard to show that "Bush lied because we all know he cooked intelligence to get what he wanted."

Quote:
A helpful analogy.

Analogies change the subject. Let's stick to what we have, please, which is spinning out of control pretty quickly.

Quote:
Clinton recommend that we actively pursue overthrowing the government of a sovereign nation.

No. He did not. You need to read that again. He said that it was our hope that regime change would happen from within.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #167 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
A case for war is a case for war regardless of 9/11. I'm going to ignore your 9/11=Saddham argument (low hanging fruit) for the moment. I have a couple questions about the Clinton/Bush issue.

If Clinton's evidence and arguments for regime change were just as legitimate then as they were in '02, why didn't Clinton prepare the military for a full-scale invasion?

I would say the the very big decisive change in policy came with 9/11. That isn't an attempt to say that Saddam caused 9/11 which is a simplification. Rather it is taking the same previously understood situation and deciding that the previous solution for it is no longer acceptable in the context of new events.

I've stated clearly that Bush made the change and push for a preemptive doctrine.

Quote:
Could it be that congressional Republicans would have killed (metaphorically) Clinton for doing something that extreme?

While we can never truly know hypotheticals, I do not think they would have argued Clinton wrong in taking on the same two targets that we decided to act on after 9/11. Perhaps a few more Democrats would have supported it. Perhaps a few less Republicans wouldn't be able to get past it being Clinton. Who truly knows?

Quote:
And why would have Republicans been right?

Instead of arguing Republicans and Democrats, what we should ask is whether preemption has been right and whether we should use it in the future. If you want to argue Bush wrong for arguing preemption you are welcome to do so. However just be consistant. That means argue that people who voted for the preemptive war are also wrong. Be honest and put it above teams.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #168 of 191
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I would say the the very big decisive change in policy came with 9/11. That isn't an attempt to say that Saddam caused 9/11 which is a simplification. Rather it is taking the same previously understood situation and deciding that the previous solution for it is no longer acceptable in the context of new events.

I've stated clearly that Bush made the change and push for a preemptive doctrine.



While we can never truly know hypotheticals, I do not think they would have argued Clinton wrong in taking on the same two targets that we decided to act on after 9/11. Perhaps a few more Democrats would have supported it. Perhaps a few less Republicans wouldn't be able to get past it being Clinton. Who truly knows?





Instead of arguing Republicans and Democrats, what we should ask is whether preemption has been right and whether we should use it in the future. If you want to argue Bush wrong for arguing preemption you are welcome to do so. However just be consistant. That means argue that people who voted for the preemptive war are also wrong. Be honest and put it above teams.

Nick

Those who voted for preemptive war were wrong. Dead wrong. Dems and Repubs. Period.

If Clinton invaded Iraq as a preemptive measure, regardless of the evidence of WMDs, it would have been wrong and Republicans would have been correct in strongly opposing him (and let's be honest, they would have).

It should be noted that I'm NOT taking the dove position here. I'm taking this position based on the what the real-world ramifications would have been/are about invading a middle-eastern nation with little more provocation than some aluminum tubes and here-say.
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #169 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Be honest

Are you implying that Northgate was dishonest somewhere? If so, please point it out.
post #170 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
Those who voted for preemptive war were wrong. Dead wrong. Dems and Repubs. Period.

If Clinton invaded Iraq as a preemptive measure, regardless of the evidence of WMDs, it would have been wrong and Republicans would have been correct in strongly opposing him (and let's be honest, they would have).

It should be noted that I'm NOT taking the dove position here. I'm taking this position based on the what the real-world ramifications would have been/are about invading a middle-eastern nation with little more provocation than some aluminum tubes and here-say.

Your response reminds how successfully the Bush administration has prevented the fundamental question from even being posed, much less answered:

Was there ever a chance in hell that invading Iraq to topple Saddam was going to result in a pro-American democracy in the region? I seem to recall a great many terrorist loving Saddam supporting liberals very loudly pointing out that the biggest problem with Bush's little scheme was that it wouldn't work. They, of course, were defeatists and blame America first types who practically had French citizenship, so insipid and effete were their objections.

It's funny, because one would think that would be the first question to answer, and you would think that it would be the central question now.

But somehow the myth of American infallibility makes one of the underlying assumptions of the debate that, sure, given proper execution and resources and maybe some luck, invading Iraq was potentially efficacious, and the only thing that needs hashing out is whether or not we had sufficient justification for doing so.

I mean, if a reasonable person might conclude that the whole mission was doomed to failure on its own terms from the very start (bizarre and historically ignorant comparisons to post-war Japan and Germany not withstanding), it makes the dishonesty of the run-up so much more toxic to our sense of who we are and what we are capable of.

In other words, when talking about how the Bush administration lied and distorted and suppressed and massaged to drive support for a plan that was stupid and unworkable on the face of it, I think it's important not to forget the "stupid and unworkable on the face of it" piece.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #171 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
One of the arguments that Bush supporters use to defend the Plame outing goes like this: They didn't out her to get back at Wilson, they outed her to provide reporters with the context that he was part of the CIA anti-war clique. According to the White House, the CIA WMD people (e.g., Plame) were resisting the war and equivocal about WMDs, and so Wilson had a pre-existing agenda since he was a CIA WMD person's husband. So her outing wasn't revenge so much as political context.

But you can't make both that argument as well as the argument that the CIA were a bunch of exaggerating war hawks who thought Iraq was brimming with nukes and duped the White House into believing their story.

I didn't hear it as part of the CIA anti-war clique. I have read the whole Plame thing as proof that even Bush supporters were against the war. Wilson wrote what he did about Niger and gave himself additional credibility by claiming that he was sent at the behest of Cheney. Thus people were pointing at Wilson and naming him as an example "Bushies turning against their own." When investigated, it was found that Wilson was not sent by Cheney but by his own wife and thus was not a Bushie turning against his own, but a man with his own agenda.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #172 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I didn't hear it as part of the CIA anti-war clique. I have read the whole Plame thing as proof that even Bush supporters were against the war. Wilson wrote what he did about Niger and gave himself additional credibility by claiming that he was sent at the behest of Cheney. Thus people were pointing at Wilson and naming him as an example "Bushies turning against their own." When investigated, it was found that Wilson was not sent by Cheney but by his own wife and thus was not a Bushie turning against his own, but a man with his own agenda.

Nick

Wilson never claimed he was sent by Cheney. I realize it's a beloved wing-nut talking point, but it's a straight up lie.

What is it about the shelf life of these kinds of expedient fake factoids?

They come up, they get refuted, their water carriers fall silent for a while, and then they drag them back up after a suitable interval as support for a different argument, like somehow we won't notice if they slip them in later.

Maybe the idea is to just exhaust the opposition by forcing them to keep track of an ever expanding back-catalogue of bullshit.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #173 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Your point?

My point is quite clear. If two different administrations conclude that Saddam WMD's then one wasn't truthful while the other was a manipulative liar.

Quote:
Actually, they do need to be pointed out.

Snarky, snarky.

Quote:
Dude, I QUOTED YOU: "Clinton's conclusion that we ought to invade was the same which makes it hard to show that "Bush lied because we all know he cooked intelligence to get what he wanted."

Sorry. I don't get drafts on this stuff and obviously typed a bit too fast. I'm sure my overall intent has been made clear.

Quote:
Analogies change the subject. Let's stick to what we have, please, which is spinning out of control pretty quickly.

What is spinning out of control is the ability to see past a cheering for one's political team.

Quote:
No. He did not. You need to read that again. He said that it was our hope that regime change would happen from within.

And that we would fund, etc those "within" folks. I consider that to be actively pursuing even if you do not. I suppose by your reasoning the Bay of Pigs wasn't actually "actively pursuing" since it didn't use our own men and women.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #174 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Wilson never claimed he was sent by Cheney. I realize it's a beloved wing-nut talking point, but it's a straight up lie.

What is it about the shelf life of these kinds of expedient fake factoids?

They come up, they get refuted, their water carriers fall silent for a while, and then they drag them back up after a suitable interval as support for a different argument, like somehow we won't notice if they slip them in later.

Maybe the idea is to just exhaust the opposition by forcing them to keep track of an ever expanding back-catalogue of bullshit.

I suppose that evil, right-wing rag the Washington Post is just full of crap then as well?

Washington Post

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #175 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by Northgate
That doesn't mean that Nick doesn't make a couple points about the evidence Clinton had collected in drafting his policy resolution. Saddam was always going to a nuisance and not having in power was always a good thing.

The fundamental difference in ideology here is whether or not you believe the price we paid in blood and treasure was worth it. To me, personally, that's a resound NO.

The question and debate you propose here is an honest one.

Quote:
Those who voted for preemptive war were wrong. Dead wrong. Dems and Repubs. Period.

Thanks for being consistant here.

Quote:
If Clinton invaded Iraq as a preemptive measure, regardless of the evidence of WMDs, it would have been wrong and Republicans would have been correct in strongly opposing him (and let's be honest, they would have).

So now we are on the true meat of the matter. A discuss about preemptive war is what we need to have. The reason we are not having it is because, as you have noted, it would harm some Democrats in addition to some Republicans.

As for whether the Republicans would have or not, I don't think all of them would have. The are a large number of Neo-cons within the part and they have outflanked the Paleo-con members of the part who do not believe in U.N. actions, nation building, etc. The same is true of fair-trade within the Democratic party. All the Democratic interests appear to have free trade working against what they desire, yet somehow the Democratic party keeps coming out for free trade.

Quote:
It should be noted that I'm NOT taking the dove position here. I'm taking this position based on the what the real-world ramifications would have been/are about invading a middle-eastern nation with little more provocation than some aluminum tubes and here-say.

There is nothing wrong with taking the position that preemptive war is not the best policy. It doesn't make one a pacifist in my book.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #176 of 191
So perhaps we could continue this more general question in my new threads hmm?
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
Reply
post #177 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
If two different administrations conclude that Saddam WMD's then one wasn't truthful while the other was a manipulative liar.

As already mentioned by multiple people multiple times:

1. Clinton didn't "conclude that Saddam [had] WMD's." That statement has no meaning in the context of what was happening in 1998

2. The bush admin lied and exaggerated. There is a mountain of statements that can be, and have been, pointed to that demonstrate this.

Your insistence on continuing to argue against straw men and make deceptive and outright false statements belies your empty requests for an "honest" discussion.
post #178 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I suppose that evil, right-wing rag the Washington Post is just full of crap then as well?

Washington Post

Nick

Well, I don't want to get too far off the thread, but, for God's sake Nick, you've linked to an article that says nothing whatsoever about Wilson claiming Cheney sent him to Niger. Or are you under the impression that one hit on Wilson's credibility is as good another?

Moreover, even what the article you linked to does talk about-- whether his wife recommended him for the trip-- is a largely credulous report of the Pat Roberts/republican side letter of the full Senate Committee report, which, strenuous efforts by the Pat Roberts and the Republican committee members notwithstanding, is a good deal less assertive about its conclusions as this much more recent article in that very same "liberal" WP makes clear.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #179 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
My point is quite clear. If two different administrations conclude that Saddam WMD's then one wasn't truthful while the other was a manipulative liar.

But that's not what was concluded at all. Nowhere in that statement is there anything about WMD. There is a reference to weapons programs, but nothing specifically indicating WMD. All that statement says is that the US policy is that Iraq needs a democratically elected leader and to come into the fold of the good guy nations and that the US has set aside $8m to help further that along (who knows what that means).

Quote:
Sorry. I don't get drafts on this stuff and obviously typed a bit too fast. I'm sure my overall intent has been made clear.

I'm not sure what your intent was. You said that Clinton wanted to invade Iraq. Then you said you didn't say it. I'm not sure what's up.

Quote:
What is spinning out of control is the ability to see past a cheering for one's political team.

There are teams? I think we should argue about intent and motive, don't you? Whaddya think? Shall we argue about intent and motive, rather than the arguments themselves?

Quote:
And that we would fund, etc those "within" folks. I consider that to be actively pursuing even if you do not.

Again, I'm not sure what that means. If that money were used entirely in the US to fund data gathering or infrastructure building, it's hardly the same as sending it through back channels to buy AK-47s for the Kurds, is it?

Quote:
I suppose by your reasoning the Bay of Pigs wasn't actually "actively pursuing" since it didn't use our own men and women.

Let's deal with the issue at hand, please. You seem to want to draw an equivalency between Clinton's and Bush's policies towards Iraq. I'm arguing that one is a policy of invading Iraq and the other is a policy of not invading Iraq. That is not an equivalency.

And as for pre-emption: always wrong.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #180 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I suppose that evil, right-wing rag the Washington Post is just full of crap then as well?

Washington Post

Nick

That article does not say that Wilson claimed Cheney sent him. In any case, we don't need a third party, we can look at his statement directly: "In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake a form of lightly processed ore by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office."

But on the other point about why Plame was outed: I agree with your post, that the line was that he was chosen by his wife rather than Cheney - as much of a bogus point as that was, it was the point. But that's not inconsistent with what I've said. I mean, why would his wife working in the CIA undermine his credibility? Because the subtext is that it was well-known that the White House and the CIA were at odds over WMDs.
post #181 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
I mean, why would his wife working in the CIA undermine his credibility?

Because clearly the Bush admin is interested in ferreting out all instances of cronyism in the government?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #182 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
Because clearly the Bush admin is interested in ferreting out all instances of cronyism in the government?

Oooh, snap.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #183 of 191
Hey you guys, the whole Wilson thing was covered in the SIC report. (Check the TOC, it's within the first 100 pages)

It's really, well, a combination of weird and screwy.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #184 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Hey you guys, the whole Wilson thing was covered in the SIC report. (Check the TOC, it's within the first 100 pages)

It's really, well, a combination of weird and screwy.

What is so weird and screwy about it? There are some discrepancies between what Wilson says and what the Senate says - the Senate says that his wife recommended him, and he continues to deny it and the CIA denies it. The Senate says that his report changed few minds, which is entirely possible. Perhaps he believed his report's influence was greater than it really was. But in the end, he was right, and the White House has admitted it. I'm not sure what's so weird and screwy.
post #185 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What is so weird and screwy about it? There are some discrepancies between what Wilson says and what the Senate says - the Senate says that his wife recommended him, and he continues to deny it and the CIA denies it. The Senate says that his report changed few minds, which is entirely possible. Perhaps he believed his report's influence was greater than it really was. But in the end, he was right, and the White House has admitted it. I'm not sure what's so weird and screwy.

Weird and screwy as in the patented DMZ "I'm on the wrong side of this so it's time once again to act as if nothing is truly knowable and it's all a big mess and mortals will never get to the bottom of it".
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #186 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
Weird and screwy as in the patented DMZ "I'm on the wrong side of this so it's time once again to act as if nothing is truly knowable and it's all a big mess and mortals will never get to the bottom of it".

I suppose next he'll say this whole war debate is really all about metaphysics.
post #187 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
What is so weird and screwy about....

I thought this was:
Quote:
When the former ambassador spoke to Committee staff, his description of his findings differed from the DO intelligence report and his account of information provided to him by the CIA differed from the CIA officials' accounts in some respects. First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium. Second, the former ambassador said that he discussed with his CIA contacts which names and signatures should have appeared on any documentation of a legitimate uranium transaction. In fact, the intelligence report made no mention of the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal or signatures that should have appeared on any documentation of such a deal. The only mention of Iraq in the report pertained to the meeting between the Iraqi delegation and former Prime Minister Mayaki. Third, the former ambassador noted that his CIA contacts told him there were documents pertaining to the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium transaction and that the source of the information was the intelligence service. The DO reports officer told Committee staff that he did not provide the former ambassador with any information about the source or details of he original reporting as it would have required sharing classified information and, noted that there were no "documents" circulating in the IC at the time of the former ambassador's trip, only intelligence reports from intelligence regarding an alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal.

and this:
Quote:
The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12,2003) which said, "among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."' Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the "dates were wrong and the names were wrong" when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have "misspoken" to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were "forged." He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself. The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #188 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
I thought this was:

and this:

Not weird and screwy, but a huge political football. We know he was criticizing the Bush administration, and we know they were hitting back. That report was written right in the middle of all that. Maybe he made some mistakes, or maybe others were doing their best to discredit him. But the basic facts are that, in order to press for war, Bush said something in his State of the Union address about Iraq and nukes that Wilson said was false, and the White House later had to admit shouldn't have been in the speech.
post #189 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by BRussell
Not weird and screwy, but a huge political football. We know he was criticizing the Bush administration, and we know they were hitting back. That report was written right in the middle of all that. Maybe he made some mistakes, or maybe others were doing their best to discredit him. But the basic facts are that, in order to press for war, Bush said something in his State of the Union address about Iraq and nukes that Wilson said was false, and the White House later had to admit shouldn't have been in the speech.

Sigh

But seriously, I'll leave off for now. But for your entertainment -- and with a least a little tongue in cheek, one Parting Shot -- at least try to read it.

Have a great Thanksgiving, we all really have a lot to be thankful for.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #190 of 191
Quote:
Originally posted by addabox
They come up, they get refuted, their water carriers fall silent for a while, and then they drag them back up after a suitable interval as support for a different argument, like somehow we won't notice if they slip them in later.

Maybe the idea is to just exhaust the opposition by forcing them to keep track of an ever expanding back-catalogue of bullshit.

Exactly. It -is- tiresome to hear the same bullshit being spouted, refuted, and then being spouted again as truth. Rinse and repeat and hope the "newer" bullshit will stick with the fanatics and the lazy....and of course the Fox news viewers.
post #191 of 191
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › CHENEY: Criticize me and you don't support the troops