Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Whether you agree with the NIE report or not, it is more credible than Joe Wilson's fictional evidence gathering.> I wasn't talking about Wilson; I was talking about part of the NIE being released/leaked/whathaveyou, and part of the same report not being released/leaked/whathaveyou.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<Plus, why leave out the dissenting view - including that of, oh, just the State Department - unless you're trying not to present the whole story, but just the story that backs up your view?>> <Because the State Department view did not conflict with the majority view.> Yes, it did. The INR is a part of the State Department, and their view was "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious" and "INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose. INR considers it far more likely that the tubes are intended for another purpose, most likely the production of artillery rockets. The very large quantities being sought, the way the tubes were tested by the Iraqis, and the atypical lack of attention to operational security in the procurement efforts are among the factors, in addition to the DOE assessment, that lead INR to concluded that the tubes are not intended for use in Iraq's nuclear weapon program."
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Patrick Fitzgerald said that.> No, he didn't. <There are yet more shoes to drop, and it's unlikely that they'll be favorable to bush.> I disagree. The evidence, more and more, is pointing to the fact that there was no plan by the White House to punish Ambassador Wilson by "outing" his non-covert wife. <He hasn't lost anything.> Ambassador Wilson has lost his credibility. <If "leak" is misleading, then why did they instruct and underling like libby to secretly funnel this "declassified intelligence" to two sympethetic reporters on "double super secret" attribution?> We don't know that they did. You're confusing what Libby has said with what Cooper has said. They were not talking about the same thing.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <The INR is a part of the State Department> But they are not the State Department. And although the INR did not believe Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Africa, they also did not rule it out, and said, "The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities." And about those aluminum tubes, that may or may not have been for use in a nuclear centrifuge? Even if they were only for Iraq's conventional missile program, their purchase was still a violation of the UN resolutions.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Nice job Douglas. Again, in this entire story one thing has been proven and even written about by congress... and that is that Joe Wilson lied about who sent him to Niger and what he found out while in Niger. To add to this, nobody anywhere has proven that Plame was undercover or that she was outed. Fitzgerald certanly has not. So I think we can put this " scandal " the dems were panting over into the scrap-pile of countless other scandlas that didn't pan out. How about some plans on how to fight the war on terrror, how to fix social security, how to creat more jobs, how to protect our families and cultrue libs??? Your "scandal" machine is lame.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh This just in. Fitzgerald has just sent a letter to the judge in the Libby case, in which he didn't quite adequately describe Mr Libby's comments regarding the NIE. "We are writing to correct a sentence from the Government's Response to Defendant's Third Motion to Compel Discovery, filed on April 5, 2006. The sentence, which is the second sentence of the second paragraph on page 23, reads, 'Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium." That sentence should read, "Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium.""
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> No, he didn't. << Then black is white and up is down in your world. I included direct quotes from fitzgerald in which he stated that the white house deliberately sought to undermine wilson, and by extension, his credibility. >> Ambassador Wilson has lost his credibility. << Oh the irony - now it's the white house's credibility that's on the line. And which one is more important, a former ambassador from the previous administration, or the president of the united states? >> The evidence, more and more, is pointing to the fact that there was no plan by the White House to punish Ambassador Wilson by "outing" his non-covert wife. << You're dancing on the edge of semantics here. Perhaps it wasn't the intention of the white house to punish wilson "by outting his wife". But it was clearly the intention to punish wilson, and fitzgerald is saying it frankly and directly. You're saying exactly the opposite in direct contradiction of fitzgerald's statements. Why? What do you know that the special prosecutor doesn't? >> We don't know that they did. << We do know it. The facts here are not in contention. Libby disclosed to miller (and apparently novak) material from the NIE, as a direct response to wilson's op-ed column questioning bush's "facts" on the claims that saddam sought uranium from niger. Now libby, under federal indictment and going to trial, is stating that he did so on direct instruction from cheney and bush. The outstanding question is "why"? What part of this do you dispute?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I included direct quotes from fitzgerald in which he stated that the white house deliberately sought to undermine wilson, and by extension, his credibility.> You included comments by Mr Fitzgerald that were taken out of context or twisted 180 degrees to make them sound like something they were not. For instance, here's the full sentence that you excerpted for your first quote, "Some documents produced to defendant could be characterized as reflecting a plan to discredit, punish, or seek revenge against Mr. Wilson." Not exactly the ringing endorsement you tried to present it as. Also, in the second quote, Mr Fitzgerald was arguing that he could not comply with the defense's request to provide any documents that did not show a conspiracy. That does not mean that he has any documents that do show a conspiracy. Of course, all that is irrelevant. Your quotes do not show that Mr Fitzgerald said that President Bush told Mr Libby to leak, as you alleged. <And which one is more important, a former ambassador from the previous administration, or the president of the united states?> The President's of course. And even if the White House's credibility is currently "on the line", the Bush administration will be shown to have been in the right, once the facts come out. As has happened in the past. <But it was clearly the intention to punish wilson, and fitzgerald is saying it frankly and directly.> Mr Fitzgerald isn't saying that. It appears to me that the intention was to set the record straight in the face of Mr Wilson's distortions, not to punish him. <The outstanding question is "why"?> Because Mr Wilson wasn't telling his story truthfully. <What part of this do you dispute?> Mr Libby said he was authorized by VP Cheney to reveal portions of the NIE to Ms Miller. The NIE did not include any information about Ambassador Wilson's wife. According to Mr Cooper, Mr Libby told him, on super secret background, that Mr Wilson was sent to Africa due to the recommendation of his wife, who worked at the CIA. Your earlier post mixed the two distinct conversations into one. If Mr Libby really wanted to publicly "out" Ms Plame, why would he tell Mr Cooper he couldn't use the information?
Originally Posted By gadzuux He didn't tell him he couldn't use the information, he told him that it couldn't be attributed. >> You included comments by Mr Fitzgerald that were taken out of context or twisted 180 degrees to make them sound like something they were not. << I don't see that the context you provided changes the meaning of the quotes. These documents fitzgerald speaks of are being provided to libby's defense team through fitzgerald himself - it appears fitgerald had the opportunity to review the material prior to allowing it for the defense. >> That does not mean that he has any documents that do show a conspiracy. << Understood. If he did, he'd be duty-bound to provide them. But just because their may not be any 'smoking gun' documents, that doesn't then mean that what libby is contending isn't the truth. It'd be a bold tactic indeed for him to allege that he was acting under the instructions of the president if it wasn't true. >> Your quotes do not show that Mr Fitzgerald said that President Bush told Mr Libby to leak, as you alleged. << So are you contending that it isn't true? That libby is lying when he says he was instructed by cheney and bush to release the (previously classified) information to the press? Or maybe that libby hasn't made that allegation and the liberal media is making it up?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Go Gadzuux, it's OK for Wilson to lie ( congress said this ), but it's not OK for the White House to set the story staight about what Wilson was lying about? Talk about upside down. Also, why does your side always lose? LOL
Originally Posted By imadisneygal "Also, why does your side always lose? LOL" How is this relevant to the topic? But even though it isn't I thought I'd point out that disgraced former Republican congressman Cunningham's (R)seat was overwhelmingly placed in the hands of the big (D) last night. Granted, there will be a run-off but it looks like the tide is changing here. Even the two leading Republicans together didn't garner as many votes as Busby. Their 29% will have a hard time beating her 44%.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Lots of polls and pundits are predicting an open season on GOP incumbents this year. I think we should all chip in on a defibrillator for beau this fall.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<The INR is a part of the State Department>> <But they are not the State Department.> Oh MAN I wish there was an emoticon for rolling of the eyes. I said the State Dept. had a dissenting view; you said flat out that they did not. I point out the INR is part of the state dept. and you say "well, they're not the entire state dept." Talk about parsing. But it's what you're reduced to. <And although the INR did not believe Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Africa, they also did not rule it out, and said, "The Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence and Research (INR) believes that Saddam continues to want nuclear weapons and that available evidence indicates that Baghdad is pursuing at least a limited effort to maintain and acquire nuclear weapons-related capabilities.> That's known as CYA. So they didn't rule it out 100%. But the salient point - that he was trying to get it from Niger at this time, (which was being used to sell the war) was answered by "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious." And the really important point remains. Bush authorized leaking the portions of the NIE that backed up the "we must invade" view, and held back portions of the SAME report that said "wait a minute." That's misleading the public by presenting incomplete information. Period. <And about those aluminum tubes, that may or may not have been for use in a nuclear centrifuge? Even if they were only for Iraq's conventional missile program, their purchase was still a violation of the UN resolutions.> If they were intended for convention artillary, I'm not sure that's true. Not to mention irrelevant to the question of what was leaked when, and how that relates to selling the public on the war. The point again is that scary "what if they're for nukes??!!" stuff was leaked to the public to panic us, while "INR accepts the judgment of technical experts at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) who have concluded that the tubes Iraq seeks to acquire are poorly suited for use in gas centrifuges to be used for uranium enrichment and finds unpersuasive the arguments advanced by others to make the case that they are intended for that purpose." was unleaked. How convenient.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<And the really important point remains. Bush authorized leaking the portions of the NIE that backed up the "we must invade" view, and held back portions of the SAME report that said "wait a minute." That's misleading the public by presenting incomplete information. Period.>> What did he hold back that would have made any difference dabob? Why argue that Saddam should still be in power killing Iraqis and filling mass graves? Why also, do you give Jow Wilson a pass about lying yet have a problem with Bush setting the record straight?
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <<. Even the two leading Republicans together didn't garner as many votes as Busby. Their 29% will have a hard time beating her 44%>> Busby needed a lot more than 44%. From RedState.org who talks about this race all the time... Think about the failure here for a moment. Liberals had one election in one district. The incumbent party in that district had its representative resign in November, then was convicted just one month ago to 8 years in prison. All the money, all the national attention, was on this race. The polls showed momentum in a single direction. Big swing? Momentum shift? Not here. With all the hype, the effort, and the GOP's problems, Busby performed adequately. Adequately. She mustered as much support at Kerry did. If this is a sign of things to come, then the Democrats should be worried, because it only signifies that they may find yet another way to lose this November.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <He didn't tell him he couldn't use the information, he told him that it couldn't be attributed.> I don't believe that's the case. <I don't see that the context you provided changes the meaning of the quotes.> A document that "could be characterized" is different than one that "speaks of". <But just because their may not be any 'smoking gun' documents, that doesn't then mean that what libby is contending isn't the truth.> That's true. And I believe what Mr Libby is contending is the truth, as far as he remembers. But Mr Libby is not contending that there was a conspiracy to "out" Ms Plame. <It'd be a bold tactic indeed for him to allege that he was acting under the instructions of the president if it wasn't true.> Agreed. He probably was acting under the instructions of the President, in releasing portions of the NIE to reporters. However, it doesn't appear that he was acting under the instructions of the President, in disclosing Ms Plame's name and employment. <So are you contending that it isn't true? That libby is lying when he says he was instructed by cheney and bush to release the (previously classified) information to the press?> These are two different things. Yes, I am contending that it is not true that the Mr Fitzgerald said that President Bush told Mr Libby to leak, as you alleged. But no, I do not believe that Mr Libby is lying when he says he was instructed by VP Cheney and Pres Bush to release portions of the NIE. <Or maybe that libby hasn't made that allegation and the liberal media is making it up?> Bingo.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I said the State Dept. had a dissenting view; you said flat out that they did not.> Not quite. <I point out the INR is part of the state dept. and you say "well, they're not the entire state dept."> I am part of a family. So is my brother. Does that mean we always agree? Or that we always agree with the rest of our family? Have you forgotten the quote I presented from the assistant Secretary of State that stated there was a lot of different views about the uranium claim. <But the salient point - that he was trying to get it from Niger at this time, (which was being used to sell the war) was answered by "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."> And their assessment was wrong. That's probably why they were in the minority. <Bush authorized leaking the portions of the NIE that backed up the "we must invade" view, and held back portions of the SAME report that said "wait a minute."> There's no evidence that President Bush told anyone to hold back the dissenting view. From what I read, Mr Libby accurately summarized the findings of the NIE. If you read 5 reviews of a movie, and four of them were favorable, and one was not, and someone asked you what the review said, and you said, "They're pretty good", are you remiss if you don't mention that one review was bad?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I thought I'd point out that disgraced former Republican congressman Cunningham's (R)seat was overwhelmingly placed in the hands of the big (D) last night. Granted, there will be a run-off but it looks like the tide is changing here. Even the two leading Republicans together didn't garner as many votes as Busby. Their 29% will have a hard time beating her 44%.> As Woody pointed out, your parsing of the facts is a little deceptive. True, Busby got a plurality of the vote. But the only other democrat running got less than two percent. The fourteen Republicans running split 55% of the vote. I very much doubt, even with the obvious corruption of Rep Cunningham, that Democrats will take this seat. And if they can't take it, I doubt they can get a majority in the House.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <What did he hold back that would have made any difference dabob?> The INR dissent. <Why argue that Saddam should still be in power killing Iraqis and filling mass graves?> No one's arguing that, and you make yourself look foolish for saying so. <Why also, do you give Jow Wilson a pass about lying yet have a problem with Bush setting the record straight?> The only "lie" I've ever seen the right harp on is they try to claim that Wilson said that Cheney sent him to Niger. I've never seen where he said that. Only that he said the VP's office (true) asked the CIA to send someone (true). Then the right twists that into "Wilson said Cheney sent me" and thus it's a "lie." It's disingenuous, and you shouldn't hold on to it, Beau.
