Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<I said the State Dept. had a dissenting view; you said flat out that they did not.>> <Not quite.> Yes, 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?> Disingenuous. In fact, here is how the dissent is headlined in the report: "State/INR Alternative View of Iraq's Nuclear Program" State's name is right on it. <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.> Which, if anything, backs up my point. That there were many differing views on many different issues. Yet Bush only releases those that back up what he wants to press in the public mind. <<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.> It was not wrong. I know it's a right-wing talking point that Saddam was "seeking" uranium at certain times, but that term is so amorphous as to be almost meaningless. INR addressed more specific claims and found them "highly dubious." They acknowledge desire on Saddam's part but sum it up pretty well in their opening: "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 weapon-related capabilities. The activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons." And that assessment was CORRECT. Yet, what was released to the public, in an attempt to panic us, left this out. It's amazing that you still act as apologist for this action. <<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.> If you say "release A and B" but don't say "release C and D" then only A and B will be released, as no one else has authority to release C and D. That is effectively holding back the dissent. <From what I read, Mr Libby accurately summarized the findings of the NIE.> I believe what was released was not a "summary" but actual quotes. Of only the "yes, he's got WMD" type. Which is misleading. <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?> A terrible attempt at an analogy. We're not talking about movies here. We're talking about war, the most serious step a nation can take, with people's lives at stake. If one is going to take this step, one had better be DAMN sure he's right; dissent like this a). should have given the admin. pause, and b). yes, should have been released to the public if the rest of the NIE was; otherwise one is giving an (intentionally) incomplete account of what the assessment of Iraq is. Yet, you're still acting as apologist for it.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh In his May 6, 2003, column, Nicholas Kristof implies that the VP office was behind it, writing, "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger." I've seen other quotes where Ambassador Wilson made the implication even stronger, although I can't find them now. Supposedly he made them in on-air interviews. There's no question however, that Wilson distorted what he found in Niger, and denied that his wife had suggested that he be the one to go there, even though she did. <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html</a> Even the Washington Post admits that Ambassador Wilson has "twisted the truth": <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html" target="_blank">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800895.html</a>
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <State's name is right on it.> The section that includes "State" on it does not talk about the charge that Saddam sought uranium in Africa. The section that calls that charge "highly dubious" is under the INR banner alone. <Yet Bush only releases those that back up what he wants to press in the public mind.> The President releases those that back up what he believes to be the truth. He believed the charge that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa was the truth, because a majority of intelligence agencies believed it. <If you say "release A and B" but don't say "release C and D" then only A and B will be released, as no one else has authority to release C and D. That is effectively holding back the dissent.> We don't know that's what happened. You're assuming the worse, based on your dislike of the administration. <A terrible attempt at an analogy.> Of course it's not.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yet, you're still acting as apologist for it.> I'd rather be an apologist for a administration that is trying to bring peace and freedom to the Middle East, and protect America from terrorist attacks, than an apologist for Saddam Hussein.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <In his May 6, 2003, column, Nicholas Kristof implies that the VP office was behind it, writing, "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."> And what there is untrue? The VP's office did ask for an investigation. And a former ambassador (Wilson) was sent. Nowhere does it claim Cheney himself selected Wilson himself - yet you'll find right-wingers claiming that Wilson said exactly that. <There's no question however, that Wilson distorted what he found in Niger, and denied that his wife had suggested that he be the one to go there, even though she did.> This is only if you accept the conclusion of the Republican-dominated Senate committee. I do accept the idea that Wilson downplayed, or perhaps even denied that Plame recommended him for the job. I'm no particular fan of Wilson's, and I think he has an ego the size of New Jersey, and it's probable he didn't want people thinking his wife got him the job. But this seems a fairly small transgression to me compared to, say, including the ominous words in the SOTU speech AFTER your own intell services have had the reference expunged from a speech given in Cincinnati because of its dubious nature (a revelation that, I believe, came out after the Senate made its report on Wilson.)
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<State's name is right on it.>> <The section that includes "State" on it does not talk about the charge that Saddam sought uranium in Africa. The section that calls that charge "highly dubious" is under the INR banner alone.> Parsing of parsing. And of course, the INR is always a division of State, and represents a dissenting view within the government. And the major point remains: this was not released to the public while all the scary stuff was, thus giving a distorted view. <<Yet Bush only releases those that back up what he wants to press in the public mind.>> <The President releases those that back up what he believes to be the truth. He believed the charge that Saddam was seeking uranium in Africa was the truth, because a majority of intelligence agencies believed it.> But he knew there was vigorous dissent. It's simply intellectually dishonest to release partial items like this. He may have believed it was the truth, but he must have known it wasn't the "whole truth." There's a reason one must testify to tell the "whole truth" in court. <<If you say "release A and B" but don't say "release C and D" then only A and B will be released, as no one else has authority to release C and D. That is effectively holding back the dissent.>> <We don't know that's what happened. You're assuming the worse, based on your dislike of the administration.> Not at all. Of course we know that's what happened. We know which sections of the NIE he released through Libby because we saw them in the papers the next day. We didn't see the INR dissents at the same time, did we? The only way an alternate view makes sense is if Libby DID leak all of it, but the papers didn't print it. Which is so unlikely as to be able to be dismissed out of hand. Since the papers did print A and B, but didn't print C and D, we can surmise that C and D were not leaked. <<A terrible attempt at an analogy.>> <Of course it's not. > Of course it was, and I showed why. No analogy is exact, but some are worse than others. <<Yet, you're still acting as apologist for it.>> <I'd rather be an apologist for a administration that is trying to bring peace and freedom to the Middle East, and protect America from terrorist attacks, than an apologist for Saddam Hussein.> Since I've never been an apologist for Saddam, you reveal yourself to be a partisan of the rankest sort, no gentleman, and someone who knows he's losing the argument, and so has to resort to the sort of thing that ought to be beneath him.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <And what there is untrue?> I didn't say it was untrue, I said it was misleading. I also said I've seen some things that Ambassador Wilson said on the air at the time that were even more misleading. <This is only if you accept the conclusion of the Republican-dominated Senate committee.> When the Washington Post accepts it, it's probably close to the truth. From what I recall, the Senate committee quoted from the CIA report that was generated from Ambassador Wilson's trip, and that proved that he misrepresented what he found in Niger. <But this seems a fairly small transgression to me compared to, say, including the ominous words in the SOTU speech AFTER your own intell services have had the reference expunged from a speech given in Cincinnati because of its dubious nature (a revelation that, I believe, came out after the Senate made its report on Wilson.)> And, as I recall, as been shown to be a misleading charge. <And the major point remains: this was not released to the public while all the scary stuff was, thus giving a distorted view.> No, the major point remains that they released what they believed to be the truth, based on the belief of a majority of intelligence agencies. <But he knew there was vigorous dissent.> He knew there was dissent. I'm don't think it's accurate to call it vigorous. Even if the INR disagreed on some details, they did agree with the general conclusions of the NIE. <We know which sections of the NIE he released through Libby because we saw them in the papers the next day. We didn't see the INR dissents at the same time, did we?> Not exactly. Ambassador Wilson accused the Bush Administration of lying about the threat of Saddam, and parts of the NIE were released that showed it was Ambassador Wilson that was not being totally forthcoming.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Since I've never been an apologist for Saddam, you reveal yourself to be a partisan of the rankest sort, no gentleman, and someone who knows he's losing the argument, and so has to resort to the sort of thing that ought to be beneath him.> Someone's a little defensive. Reminds me of a line in Hamlet.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<And what there is untrue?>> <I didn't say it was untrue, I said it was misleading. I also said I've seen some things that Ambassador Wilson said on the air at the time that were even more misleading.> But it wasn't even misleading. It's too broad to be misleading. The VP's office asked for an investigation, and so someone was sent. Now Wilson, as I've said, may have done so, but in the greater scheme of things it seems a small transgression. <<This is only if you accept the conclusion of the Republican-dominated Senate committee.>> <When the Washington Post accepts it, it's probably close to the truth.> Not necessarily. The Post is as capable of being lazy as any outlet. And, like the WSJ, their editorial page is far more conservative than their reportage. <From what I recall, the Senate committee quoted from the CIA report that was generated from Ambassador Wilson's trip, and that proved that he misrepresented what he found in Niger.> You recall incorrectly. <<But this seems a fairly small transgression to me compared to, say, including the ominous words in the SOTU speech AFTER your own intell services have had the reference expunged from a speech given in Cincinnati because of its dubious nature (a revelation that, I believe, came out after the Senate made its report on Wilson.)>> <And, as I recall, as been shown to be a misleading charge.> You're 0-for-2 on your recall. The CIA did have the planned references removed from the Cincinnati speech, only to see them reinserted later into the SOTU. <<And the major point remains: this was not released to the public while all the scary stuff was, thus giving a distorted view.>> <No, the major point remains that they released what they believed to be the truth, based on the belief of a majority of intelligence agencies.> It's not a matter of "truth" - they didn't think the INR was lying. It was a matter of two different views, only one of which they released. The point is that they selectively released only what backed them up. Not the "whole truth." If they were that confident, they could have released the whole thing, said "this is the predominant view, and this is the dissent" and let the public deal with ALL of that information, rather than with the portions they selected only. You know - they could have treated us like adults. Instead, they released only the portions they wanted to, in order to scare us. It also gave us the erroneous impression that there WAS no dissenting view - after all, if they don't release that part, how can we know? <<But he knew there was vigorous dissent.>> <He knew there was dissent. I'm don't think it's accurate to call it vigorous. Even if the INR disagreed on some details, they did agree with the general conclusions of the NIE.> No, they didn't. The only thing they agreed with was the very broadest point of Saddam "wanting" WMD, which is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. On the other hand, the details the disagreed on were meaningful and important. And should have been released to us. <<We know which sections of the NIE he released through Libby because we saw them in the papers the next day. We didn't see the INR dissents at the same time, did we?>> <Not exactly. Ambassador Wilson accused the Bush Administration of lying about the threat of Saddam, and parts of the NIE were released that showed it was Ambassador Wilson that was not being totally forthcoming.> Not exactly. The portions that backed up the administration's claims were released. The other portions were not. <<<Since I've never been an apologist for Saddam, you reveal yourself to be a partisan of the rankest sort, no gentleman, and someone who knows he's losing the argument, and so has to resort to the sort of thing that ought to be beneath him.>> <Someone's a little defensive. Reminds me of a line in Hamlet.> Please. We established long ago that I was protesting Saddam's brutality outside Iraqi consulates, taking part in efforts to raise the profile of Iraqi dissidents (which resulted in some of their releases), etc. at a time when by your own admission you didn't even bother to find out what Saddam was up to. It's not me who needs to be defensive. Particularly as you've just verified that the kind of thing that ought to be beneath you - isn't.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <But it wasn't even misleading.> Apparently it was, because left leaning reporters began saying that it was the case. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200604070006" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/items/ 200604070006</a> <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200507280005" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/items/ 200507280005</a> <Now Wilson, as I've said, may have done so, but in the greater scheme of things it seems a small transgression.> There's no "may" about it. Ambassador Wilson definitely claimed his wife had nothing to do with his getting the assignment, when the truth is she did. "Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is {expletive deleted}. That is absolutely not the case," Wilson told TIME." <a href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/printout/0" target="_blank">http://www.time.com/time/natio n/printout/0</a>,8816,465270,00.html <You're 0-for-2 on your recall. The CIA did have the planned references removed from the Cincinnati speech, only to see them reinserted later into the SOTU.> Hardly. I just checked the Senate report, which was bipartisan, and it did include quotes from the CIA report, along with a lot of paraphrasing. I'm sure that Democrat members of the committee had access to the CIA report, and would have objected if the paraphrasing wasn't accurate. On the Cincinnati speech, yes, some material that was very specific was removed, because it could not be quickly and confidently confirmed. However, before the SOTU was done, the White House double checked with the British and confirmed that they still had confidence in the assertion. <It's not a matter of "truth" - they didn't think the INR was lying.> No, they didn't think the INR was lying. They just thought they were wrong, which, in the case of Saddam attempting to buy uranium from Niger, is the truth. <No, they didn't.> Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff at the State Department, says otherwise: "And people say, well, INR (the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research) dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios. . . . The consensus of the intelligence community was overwhelming. I can still hear (CIA Director) George Tenet telling me, and telling my boss (Colin Powell) in the bowels of the CIA, that the information we were delivering . . . (He) was convinced that what we were presented was accurate." <Not exactly. The portions that backed up the administration's claims were released. The other portions were not.> How do you know what was released and what was not?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's not me who needs to be defensive. Particularly as you've just verified that the kind of thing that ought to be beneath you - isn't.> Unlike you, I haven't used a derogatory term to characterize you or one of your arguments. You're the one that first breaks out the perjoratives when we have debates.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy <Since I've never been an apologist for Saddam, you reveal yourself to be a partisan of the rankest sort, no gentleman, and someone who knows he's losing the argument, and so has to resort to the sort of thing that ought to be beneath him.> Dabob, what good did you do by protesting Saddam, something I admire, if your not willing to back the effort to remove the SOB? Also, at this point there is no way anyone can possible think Plame was covert, that she was outed for revenge, or that Joe Wilson is NOT a liar. We have been saying this for years on the right.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> Ambassador Wilson definitely claimed his wife had nothing to do with his getting the assignment, when the truth is she did. << If true, what difference does it make? Why is it even relevant? The only reason this came up is because neo-cons were saying that wilson stated he was sent to africa at the behest of the VPs office. In a roundabout way, it's true. Cheney's office tasked the CIA with investigation the claim, and they ended up sending wilson. But he never said he was sent by cheney's office. It's all one big red herring that has no bearing on the controversy.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << But he never said he was sent by cheney's office. >> He sure hinted at it. Did he say his wife got him the gig? Nope, he lied. But this entire "scandal " the libs were panting over regarding a top secret CIA agent being "outed" has pretty much run its course. To bad they had to try and push this thing so far because theyt have no ideas to bring America.. just more bogus " scandals ". In the end, this doesn't get you votes outside Frisco and a few other pockets of blue areas.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <If true, what difference does it make?> It speaks to his credibility. <The only reason this came up is because neo-cons were saying that wilson stated he was sent to africa at the behest of the VPs office.> As my links showed, it wasn't just neo-cons that were saying that.
Originally Posted By ADMIN <font color="#FF0000">Message removed by an administrator. <a href="MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">Click here</a> for the LaughingPlace.com Community Standards.</font>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob, what good did you do by protesting Saddam, something I admire, if your not willing to back the effort to remove the SOB?> It does more good than you might think. It got some political prisoners released (and I also took part in campaigns to raise the profile of Soviet dissidents, Nelson Mandela, and political prisoners in other regimes, right-wing and left; if you can succeed in raising their profile, you can sometimes shame the regime into releasing them or at least making it so that they can't just "disappear" and no harm can come to them, lest it trigger international repurcussions. It's not always successful, but it often is, and it's something I highly recommend. You ought to try it.) It's a sad fact that we can't remove every tyrant in the world, and IMO if one is going to commit the nation to the monumental step of invasion and occupation, there had better be an imminent threat to us. Otherwise we'd be invading countries left and right (sorry for the pun); invading Iran and North Korea now, for instance, which would not be wise. That is a question I don't think the neocons asked, or at least not strongly enough - ultimately is this WISE? It was not, IMO; it has distracted us from the actual war on terror, damaged our ability to fight a possibly more pressing threat, and left us with now a selection of bad choices in Iraq itself. Many thoughtful people warned of exactly this if we invaded, and I opposed the war for those reasons, not because I was any fan of Saddam any more than I'm a fan of Kim in Korea now (Assuming you don't favor invading Korea either, Beau, does that mean you "love Kim?" No, it means you have other reasons for opposing invasion.) Reasonable people can disagree, Beau, and I should hope that after reading that you're not still thinking anyone "loves Saddam" or anything as ridiculous as that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Dabob, what good did you do by protesting Saddam, something I admire, if your not willing to back the effort to remove the SOB?> It does more good than you might think. It got some political prisoners released (and I also took part in campaigns to raise the profile of Soviet dissidents, Nelson Mandela, and political prisoners in other regimes, right-wing and left; if you can succeed in raising their profile, you can sometimes shame the regime into releasing them or at least making it so that they can't just "disappear" and no harm can come to them, lest it trigger international repurcussions. It's not always successful, but it often is, and it's something I highly recommend. You ought to try it.) It's a sad fact that we can't remove every tyrant in the world, and IMO if one is going to commit the nation to the monumental step of invasion and occupation, there had better be an imminent threat to us. Otherwise we'd be invading countries left and right (sorry for the pun); invading Iran and North Korea now, for instance, which would not be wise. That is a question I don't think the neocons asked, or at least not strongly enough - ultimately is this WISE? It was not, IMO; it has distracted us from the actual war on terror, damaged our ability to fight a possibly more pressing threat, and left us with now a selection of bad choices in Iraq itself. Many thoughtful people warned of exactly this if we invaded, and I opposed the war for those reasons, not because I was any fan of Saddam any more than I'm a fan of Kim in Korea now (Assuming you don't favor invading Korea either, Beau, does that mean you "love Kim?" No, it means you have other reasons for opposing invasion.) Reasonable people can disagree, Beau, and I should hope that after reading that you're not still thinking anyone "loves Saddam" or anything as ridiculous as that.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Sorry for the double post. <<But it wasn't even misleading.>> <Apparently it was, because left leaning reporters began saying that it was the case. <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/items/</a> 200604070006 <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/" target="_blank">http://mediamatters.org/items/</a> 200507280005> You should go back and check your antecedents, chief. The "it" in this case was the Kristof piece. Check 143, 145, and 147, and you'll see this is so. The mediamatters pieces you link to make no mention of this. They point out (correctly) that right-wingers incorrectly accused Wilson of claiming Cheney himself sent him to Niger, which he did not do. Wilson is not without fault here, as I've said, but he never made that claim. The right-wingers started that spurious charge, and the mainstream media picked it up. THAT's what mediamatters is saying was misleading. Your links don't address themselves to Kristof. And I still maintain that that statement: "I'm told by a person involved in the Niger caper that more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger." is too broad to be misleading. <<Now Wilson, as I've said, may have done so, but in the greater scheme of things it seems a small transgression.>> <There's no "may" about it. Ambassador Wilson definitely claimed his wife had nothing to do with his getting the assignment, when the truth is she did.> I've already said that Wilson is an egotist who wanted people to believe that he got that gig on his own merits, rather than via nepotism. But that's a pretty small transgression in the larger scheme of things. <<You're 0-for-2 on your recall. The CIA did have the planned references removed from the Cincinnati speech, only to see them reinserted later into the SOTU.>> <Hardly. I just checked the Senate report, which was bipartisan, and it did include quotes from the CIA report, along with a lot of paraphrasing. I'm sure that Democrat members of the committee had access to the CIA report, and would have objected if the paraphrasing wasn't accurate.> That has nothing to do with my paragraph above yours. <On the Cincinnati speech, yes, some material that was very specific was removed, because it could not be quickly and confidently confirmed. However, before the SOTU was done, the White House double checked with the British and confirmed that they still had confidence in the assertion.> The British might have, but the CIA (except possibly George "tell him what he wants to hear" Tenet) didn't. And it wasn't just some "very specific" stuff - it was the whole "Africa story is overblown. The evidence is weak." <a href="http://www.villagevoice.com/news/0544" target="_blank">http://www.villagevoice.com/ne ws/0544</a>,schanberg,69551,6.html "Back to the evidence record: In October 2002, five months before the war would begin, the CIA was asked to vet a speech that the president was about to deliver in Cincinnati. The speech contained the line, "and the [Saddam Hussein] regime has been caught attempting to purchase up to 500 metric tons of uranium oxide from Africa—an essential ingredient in the enrichment process." The CIA asked the White House to "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source. We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue. Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide [yellowcake] in their inventory." The White House tweaked the speech and sent it back. The sentence was still there. The only thing removed was the uranium's tonnage. So the CIA pressed its case again, and the sentence was dropped from the draft of the speech. But just to make sure it would stay dropped, the agency sent yet another message to the White House. This one repeated the earlier points, stressing that "the Africa story is overblown" and adding: "The evidence is weak. One of the two mines cited . . . as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded. The other mine . . . is under the control of the French authorities." The president delivered the speech on October 7—minus the uranium sentence. Yet nearly four months later, on January 28, 2003, Bush delivered his annual State of the Union address, and to defend his war plans, he told the uranium story again, in what are now his infamous "16 words": "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Our own CIA is telling them that the Brits have exaggerated this. Yet, to this day, right-wingers are telling us it was okay to include the designed-to-frighten-us phrase in the SOTU because the British were okay with it. <<It's not a matter of "truth" - they didn't think the INR was lying.>> <No, they didn't think the INR was lying. They just thought they were wrong, which, in the case of Saddam attempting to buy uranium from Niger, is the truth.> As I've said before "attempting to buy" is so broad as to be virutally meaningless. <<No, they didn't.>> <Larry Wilkerson, former Chief of Staff at the State Department, says otherwise: "And people say, well, INR (the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research) dissented. That's a bunch of bull. INR dissented that the nuclear program was up and running. That's all INR dissented on. They were right there with the chems and the bios.> We weren't talking about chems and bios. And nukes are, obviously, the most potent, and the one that scared the US public the most. But I think you might be interested in some other things Wilkerson said. <a href="http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcriptNOW205_full.html" target="_blank">http://www.pbs.org/now/transcr ipt/transcriptNOW205_full.html</a> "AWRENCE WILKERSON, FMR. CHIEF OF STAFF, STATE DEPT.: I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community, and the United Nations Security Council. How do you think that makes me feel? BRANCACCIO: As Powell's Chief of Staff, Wilkerson was intimately involved in preparing that U.N. address. Wilkerson is so upset by what happened, he says he can no longer remain silent. DAVID BRANCACCIO: A hoax, that's quite a word. WILKERSON: Well, let's face it. It was. It was not a hoax that the Secretary in any way was complicit in. In fact, he did his best. I watched him work to try and hone the presentation down to what was a slam dunk. Firm. Iron clad. I recall vividly the Secretary of State walking into my office. And he said, looking out the window, just musing. He said, "I wonder what we'll do if we put half a million troops on the ground in Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and don't find a single weapon of mass destruction." BRANCACCIO: And that's what's happened. WILKERSON: That's what's happened. " (snip) "BRANCACCIO: In fact, there were major doubts inside the intelligence community about about everything that was being said about the Iraq threat, even as Powell's speech was being planned and delivered. Lawrence Wilkerson now suspects the administration may have used Powell. BRANCACCIO: Is it reasonable to think the administration knew about this skepticism? WILKERSON: Six months ago, I would have said no. Since that time, however, there have been some revelations. BRANCACCIO: Those revelations are fueling Wilkerson's concern that the administration may have known its claims were anything but a slam dunk. And in recent weeks, there have been a string of them. Take just one example: the claim that Saddam Hussein had mobile laboratories to produce deadly germs like anthrax." Interesting the timing on this. I found your Wilkerson quotes in an opinionjournal piece from the fall of 2005, so obviously they were said no later than this. But note than in Feb. 2006 he's now saying that he doesn't believe what he did 6 months ago. At that time, he would have said the administration didn't know about the skepticism within the intell community. But now he knows more, and WOULDN'T SAY THAT ANY MORE. <<Not exactly. The portions that backed up the administration's claims were released. The other portions were not.>> <How do you know what was released and what was not?> We've been through this. We now know what the whole NIE said, and we know which portions showed up in the press before other portions. Unless you believe that everything was released and the PRESS chose to print just the portions that backed up admin. policy but not the dissents, we can logically surmise that the portions that made the press before the others were the ones released before the others. <<It's not me who needs to be defensive. Particularly as you've just verified that the kind of thing that ought to be beneath you - isn't.>> <Unlike you, I haven't used a derogatory term to characterize you or one of your arguments. You're the one that first breaks out the perjoratives when we have debates.> Just the opposite. You called me a "Saddam apologist." That's not a derogatory term? (And not just of my argument either).
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Yet, to this day, right-wingers are telling us it was okay to include the designed-to-frighten-us phrase in the SOTU because the British were okay with it.> No, right-wingers are telling you it was okay because it was true. <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/" target="_blank">http://www.slate.com/id/213960 9/</a> <As I've said before "attempting to buy" is so broad as to be virutally meaningless.> It was another example of Saddam refusing to comply with the UN resolutions. <You called me a "Saddam apologist."> No, I didn't. I simply said I didn't want to be one.
