Now I know that you can’t read the inflection in my voice when I say: “Excuse Me ?!?” So I’ll describe it for you. It is that inflection which suggests disbelief that you have been put in a particular situation, or shock that some person says something that you didn’t expect from them.
I say it after reading this Washington Post article. Allow me to quote the surprising part:
It was Saddam Hussein’s information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as “Baghdad Bob,” who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade — an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.
That’s according to a new book Joseph C. Wilson IV, a former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the CIA in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had been trying to buy enriched “yellowcake” uranium. Wilson wrote that he did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January, when he talked again with his Niger source.
According to Wilson Iraq tried to acquire uranium? This is according to ‘Bush is !@#$%#@ liar for suggesting that Saddam was trying to acquire uranium from African nations’ Wilson?
Excuse me ?!?
Where do I go to get the days I spent arguing about this point back?
And what is this “did not learn the identity of the Iraqi official until this January” crap? If he knew that some Iraqi official was seeking uranium from Niger this belies all of Wilson’s denials that any such thing happened even if Wilson did not know the precise identity of the offical until now. And if he merely knew that SOMEONE was seeking to obtain uranium, didn’t he think it was important to find out if maybe that person was an Iraqi official? What the hell was Wilson doing in Niger? Sipping mint tea with government officials and getting official denials?
Porphyrogenitus brought this to my attention. He is joining the Army, so he won’t be blogging much in the near future. But he is well worth the read till then.
Where do I go to get the days I spent arguing about this point back?
If you spent those days arguing this point when the Plame Affair scandal broke, I have no sympathy for you: you wasted your time on an entirely trivial point.
Sebastian, you go from “Ludicrous Iraqi Official talks to Niger guy who makes a supposition” to “Bush’s assertion (which he admits was made based on forged documents) was right”. I.e., you’re not making an argument. What Jes points out aside, you need to show that Bush actually had good intel and then explain the retraction. And no consequentialism. Also you need to discuss the complete and fortunate lack of any Iraqi mushroom cloud threat, as shown by our $1 billion WMD search.
“Porphyrogenitus brought this to my attention.”
I blogged this article five days ago.
Non-sarcastic reply:
It’s about PLAME. Wilson doesn’t matter, except regarding the WMD’s – and rilkefan says what needs to be said about that. Plame was exposed as retribution, and nothing can excuse that.
Sarcastic reply:
Oh, well then expose the identities of every CIA agent Joseph Wilson knows! If Joe was wrong, then who cares how many felonies the administration commits in retribution? Felonies for everyone! If 2 wrongs make a right, then 100 make it even righter!
Sebastian, read the first paragraph of the WaPo article you quote. An Iraqi official talking to the Nigeriens talked about opening up trade links, which the Nigeriens took (without any corroborating evidence) to be about uranium. As I recall, Wilson, when reporting this statement, also mentioned that there didn’t seem to have been any followup (either on trade _or_ uranium). This != Wilson admitting that the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium in Niger.
this is so weak.
Here’s Wilson’s article. The issue oat the time was whether Iraq purchased yellowcake, not whether it wanted to.
Quotes from the article:
“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.”
This work had already been done before Wilson got there. “The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger’s uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington.”
In his article Wilson emphasizes that the process of yellowcake export is sufficiently transparent to preclude Iraq from getting it without people knowing. Therefore, “It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.”
Sebastian, I think you just wanted a chance to post on “Baghdad Bob”, again.
Sebastian:
Maybe you misread the article?
“According to Wilson Iraq tried to acquire uranium?”
No. According to Wilson, a Nigerian official had a “supposition” that an Iraqi minister who inquired about trade may actually have wanted to buy uranium. Major difference there, bro.
Tim Dunlop is actually reading Joseph Wilson’s book. He’s typed in big chunks of text on his webpage. Wilson makes it very clear that there was no reason to believe that Iraq was seeking Nigerian yellowcake.
The Washington Post wrote an extremely misleading paragraph, especially when taken out of context. You’re not the only one misled. But the fact is, Wilson most certainly does not say that any Iraqi official was seeking uranium from Niger.
While we’re parsing words to get the absolute central meaning therein, I guess this is the part where I remind everyone that Bush didn’t discuss Wilson’s findings during the SOTU speech, but the summary of British intelligence, which to this day (IIRC) Tony Blair still stands by.
Wilson can say that Iraq was seeking recipes for casseroles if he wants, he wasn’t the first noun in that sentence – British intelligence was.
oh, please, Ricky. They’ve already admitted that it shouldn’t have been in the speech. You know your brain is warped when you’re more partisan than, well, the party itself.
Let’s just make sure we always give the benefit of the doubt to the bad guys…
Let’s focus on how bad Bush is… and ignore the real threat.
If it wasn’t all so pathetic it might be funny.
Which part of focusing on (at best) misleading statements by the President of the United States, that were used to justify a _war_ is pathetic? Never mind that it was _Sebastian_ who started the thread in the first place.
Hold on. In his book Wilson is suggesting that Iraq was SEEKING but probably not GETTING uranium from Niger. Those are two very different claims. If Iraq was SEEKING uranium, and it was, it belies the silly idea that Saddam had given up on his nuclear ambitions–a thesis quite central to the war argument on both sides. Wilson was extremely derisive of the idea that Iraq was SEEKING uranium when he was doing his media blitz in 2003.
Now he admits that Iraq was seeking nuclear material.
And assuming that the officals in Niger are effectively just making up the idea that the trade links had something to do with the yellowcake is to assume things way to far. That wasn’t them quoting the Iraqi official as in, “He said trade talks and I thought uranium”. That was an explanation of the trade talks that Iraq tried to open–a summary of what was certainly more than 5 minutes of talking (typically hours or days).
Oh Darn… my wife’s cover is blown… her life is in danger… I know let’s pose on the front of a magazine.
I remind everyone that Bush didn’t discuss Wilson’s findings during the SOTU speech, but the summary of British intelligence, which to this day (IIRC) Tony Blair still stands by.
I remind everyone the CIA communicated to British Intelligence–before the SotU–that we considered the claim Iraq had purchased or sought to purchase yellowcake from Niger to be bogus.
The point’s moot, however; the CIA, NSC, and WH have said the lie shouldn’t have been in the SoTU.
Let’s just make sure we always give the benefit of the doubt to the bad guys…
Whack that straw-man, O. Whack! Whack! Whack!
Oh Darn… my wife’s cover is blown… her life is in danger… I know let’s pose on the front of a magazine.
Drat. OinRTP has us there. Everyone knows foreign intelligence gets all their intelligence from Vanity Fair and would never think to look at certain op/ed columns.
… the lie…
Let’s just assume Bush is a liar and proceed from there… we can get nowhere much faster.
Sebastian,
Let me repeat:
He didn’t say that Iraq was seeking nuclear material. The Washington Post wrote a highly misleading story. In particular, that paragraph, taken by itself, is highly misleading.
I know that you know that the White House has said that the sentence shouldn’t have been in there. I know that you know that Joseph Wilson, along with two other investigations, concluded that Iraq was not trying to buy yellowcake from Niger. I know that you believe (correctly) that Wilson has a partisan interest in hurting this Administration.
Now, given those things, how can you be so adamant that partisan Joe Wilson has just written a book that contradicts his earlier claims? Doesn’t it make more sense that the Post wrote a bad story?
Also, re: the Vanity Fair cover, etc.- spare me. John Ashcroft appointed an independent prosecutor to look into the illegal leak of Valerie Plame’s identity. Ashcroft is a loyal member of the Administration, and he wouldn’t have done that lightly.
I didn’t waste time on this over the Plame affair, I wasted time on this when it was one of the most central arguments in the BUSH LIED!!!!!!!!!!! debates.
He didn’t say that Iraq was seeking nuclear material. The Washington Post wrote a highly misleading story. In particular, that paragraph, taken by itself, is highly misleading.
Does Wilson now admit that Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf “approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade — an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.”
The reason this was central to the BUSH LIED debate was because it would tend to show that Saddam was still trying to get nuclear material. That would have been bad for the “if we stop being mean Saddam won’t be a threat” crowd.
And for people who just love the idea of negotiations, you don’t show much understanding about how they work. If an offical from Niger spends the day or more it takes for initial trade overtures with Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf there is no reason to be so disparaging to the idea that the official saw it as an effort to buy uranium. It isn’t as if the only words Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf said were “I want trade” and the official from Niger though “Aha, the words ‘I want trade’ really mean that he is trying to get uranium.” They went through the initial talks and the official got the impression that this important Iraqi official was feeling him out to get uranium. When you are from a nation under UN sanction seeking nuclear material you don’t just make a telephone call saying, “Hey dude, can we buy some of that?” You go IN PERSON and feel out the officials with deniable hints and suggestions.
The fact that Wilson knew about this makes his subsequent entry into the BUSH LIED argument absolutely ridiculous.
Where’s the part where the notation that British intelligence said just what Bush noted, asdf?
Am I a poopy-head, too?
Did it make you feel better to anonymously attack me personally? Did it impress daddy? Did your chest puff out while you stared at your monitor?
Do get back to me when British intelligence doesn’t stand by the contention they made at the time.
Ricky, did Condi Rice say or not say that the 16 words should not have risen to the level of a presidential address?
Refocussing attention back on the reason for the post, gentlemen, the question is “Did Wilson actually discover (at any point) that some Iraqi [official or otherwise who could be construed as representing Hussein] was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger and then mislead us about it?”
If he had, then he owes the president an apology. If he did no such thing, well…
None of this changes the fact that outing a CIA agent is bad for national security, but that’s not what this post it about.
Did Wilson mislead the media about what he knew?
I see no evidence in this that he did myself.
BTW, British Intelligence still stands by its intelligence dossier on Iraq that it plagiarized from an essay by a California grad school student concerning the invasion of Kuwait 13 years ago.
Jadegold, I’m laughing on the outside, crying on the inside.
Meanwhile, all of this sound and fury about Wilson is very much old news.
Spare us the outrage.
From the SOTU: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
From Wilson’s article: “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.”
From the Washinton post: “It was Saddam Hussein’s information minister, Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, often referred to in the Western press as “Baghdad Bob,” who approached an official of the African nation of Niger in 1999 to discuss trade — an overture the official saw as a possible effort to buy uranium.”
Sebastian seems to have caught Wilson in that Wilson was denying a yellowcake transaction when Bush was only claiming that Saddam was seeking yellowcake. Course, its unclear whether Saddam was seeking it, and this infammatory sentence didn’t belong in the SOTUA but a gotcha is a gotcha so Sebastian deserves credit for it.
I do like MFB’s comment to Tim Dunlop’s post when he says:
“Isn’t this over-egging the pudding a little?
1. Iraq had yellowcake uranium and had no need to purchase more if it wanted to enrich it.
2. Unfortunately, Iraq had no uranium enrichment facilities and would have had to build some if it wanted to enrich the yellowcake which it possessed.
3. Therefore, if Iraq had indeed been trying to buy yellowcake uranium, it would have been a sign that the regime was run by nitwits or loonies.
4. However, it would not have had any military significance (unless the U.S. military were afraid of being bombarded with yellowcake mud-pies).”
I didn’t waste time on this over the Plame affair
Okay.
I wasted time on this when it was one of the most central arguments in the BUSH LIED!!!!!!!!!!! debates.
Well, in that case I do have some more sympathy for you: it must be tough to defend a President against the charge of lying only to discover that the charges are true.
asdf,
I need no lessons in history. I know full well what the administration said and did not say. And, the context still stands: if we’re going to word parse over the yellowcake, then I feel it’s pertinent to point out that Bush didn’t lie in the SOTU. You can try to divert attention to whether or not it should have been included (apple), but it changes nothing from the FACTS (orange). One needn’t be a partisan to look at Condi’s comments and Tony Blair’s as well.
Fact: the administration wishes that Bush hadn’t mentioned the African purchase claim.
Fact: British intelligence stands by the intel
Fact: Bush told the truth
Parse all you want, you know I’m right, which is why you’re trying to change the subject.
BTW, if you want to laugh, you’ll love this.
Ricky – I don’t get it. Please explain why your link is supposed to be funny.
Hey, Ricky — why did Stephen Hadley have to negotiate to write that phrase the way he did, after the CIA had already discredited the information back in October.
Of course it was written in such a way that it wasn’t technically a lie.
As for your link, I don’t see what it has to do with anything.
Again, another swerve and another attempt to divert the conversation.
I’ve wasted enough time —- if you find something that disputes what I typed, instead of making you mad & causing you to try to muddy the water, let me know. I love to debate but not when there’s nothing to be gained.
Parse all you want
Excuse me, but who is parsing?
The fact is our CIA knew the claims Iraq had purchased or had tried to purchase yellowcake was bogus. And that they told British Intelligence the same.
Amb. Wilson’s fact-finding mission to Niger also confirmed Iraq hadn’t purchased or tried to purchase yellowcake from Niger.
Yet, Bush includes this lie in his SoTU as a rationale for war. Later, the CIA, the NSC, and the WH all say Bush shouldn’t have put the bogus claim in the SoTU.
Who is parsing?
BTW, it should be noted the British Intelligence is based on documents found in Italy that have been conclusively shown to be forgeries.
It matters whether or not any individual statement of Bush’s can, if parsed exactly the right way, be said to be truth even though it’s actually describing a falsehood – in exactly the same way as it matters whether the “senior administration official” who outed Plame’s covert identity to Novak committed a felony.
Even the White House agreed that a known falsehood shouldn’t have gone in SOTU even though the exact way it was phrased made it technically not a lie.
Even (well, many of them, if not all) Republican supporters agree that even if the senior administration offical can’t be prosecuted because technically Plame hadn’t worked overseas for five years, outing a covert CIA agent for revenge on her husband is a scummy thing to do.
Yet so many Republicans kept on focussing on what Wilson said, even though the real issue was what Bush said – and what one of the senior members of his administration did.
Again, another swerve and another attempt to divert the conversation.
Who did? I hope you didn’t think I was doing that. I’m just a guy that likes a chuckle every now and then. Except I’m a little dim. If you can tell me why your link is funny then you will be sharing a laugh and I’ll be the beneficiary.
Fabius,
That “funny” note was sarcasm. The link was provided because Guy Cabot (now using the alias of “Jadegold”) is again seeking my acknowledgment. I thought I’d provide some context before the lies start rolling in.
And no, the ‘diversion’ part was in response to asdf’s continued attempts to change the conversation, for some reason, even though I acknowledge the history of the admin backtracking on the (factual) statement in the SOTU.
“The fact is our CIA knew the claims Iraq had purchased or had tried to purchase yellowcake was bogus. And that they told British Intelligence the same.”
What?
The fact is that our CIA knew a particular document was a fake and passed that on to British Intelligence. They certainly didn’t know what you think, because Wilson is now revealing that Iraq was making overtures in Niger which the officials in Niger believed were attempts to purchase uranium.
Which makes Bush’s claim true.
Not only did British intelligence CLAIM that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa, it was in fact true that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa. And Wilson knew or should have known that because that is precisely what his contact in Niger told him.
The only information that Wilson claims he recently obtained was the specific name of the Iraqi official involved: Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf, a very high ranking Iraqi official indeed.
That is what makes all the whining about the State of the Union address so ridiculous. Especially with respect to Wilson. If Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf was seeking uranium in Niger, Bush’s claim is correct. Wilson knew about this Iraqi contact, though he didn’t find out WHICH IRAQI OFFICIAL was involved. So his TV tour on the Bush Lied circuit was based on at least as much obfuscation as he accuses the President of committing. Wilson knew that there were Iraqi overtures to Niger, yet he still attacked the President on his claims that Saddam was seeking (‘seeking’ speaking to the long term danger of Saddam rather than ‘obtaining’ which would speak to the left’s hobby-horse fascination with imminent threat) uranium in Africa. This speaks directly to the left’s charge that Bush was misleading the public. Bush correctly identified the importance of the fact that even under severe UN Sanctions (though maybe not so severe as we thought) Saddam was still attempting to gain nuclear weapons. He did so publically. And even though Wilson knew it was true, he attempted to portray it as false.
That “funny” note was sarcasm.
I keep looking for something upthread that Jadegold did wrong. I can’t find it. You seem to think that saying his name is an argument against him. I don’t see that either. Maybe you guys have history, I don’t know, but if you do will you please take it outside?
Again, Mr. Holsclaw, the British intelligence claim was based on the forged Italian documents. Our CIA had serious doubts –rightly so–about their authenticity and passed those concerns on to British Intelligence.
Further, Amb. Wilson’s findings confirmed no Iraqi purchase or attempt to purchase yellowcake from Niger.
Mark, in his comments above, neatly disposes of your claim that Iraq was seeking uranium (a wholly unsubstantiated assertion). This, of course, is merely deflecting the issue away from fact into the realm of unsubstantiated and unsupported speculation.
because Wilson is now revealing that Iraq was making overtures in Niger which the officials in Niger believed were attempts to purchase uranium.
Let’s be clear — as Mark pointed out early on in this thread, Wilson revealed that the Niger official believed that uranium was on the agenda. You’re making the assumption that this official’s suspicion can be trusted. Whether or not this is a valid assumption, the statement of yours that I quoted is false. The thesis of your entire post hangs on that assumption.
Bush correctly identified the importance of the fact that even under severe UN Sanctions (though maybe not so severe as we thought) Saddam was still attempting to gain nuclear weapons.
According to every link, post and what have you we’ve come up with on this post the closest thing we have to Saddam attempting to gain nuclear weapons is that a Niger trade official thinks maybe that what they were after was something they already had. That’s a thin stock to try to make a porridge.
As was pointed out above, evidence of Saddam’s trying to get yellowcake in the absence of facilities to enrich it would demonstrate incompetence on the part of his regime. Or, rather, that he was trying to bluff us. I wonder if there are any poker players in our admin, and how they feel about believing Saddam’s busted flush (poker players feel free to correct my metaphor.)
OhfortheloveofGod. Do you KNOW how many times I have been proved right, and the administration and its defenders proved wrong, or lying, or both, over the past year and a half?
I’ve gotten no apologies. The public has gotten no apologies. And this is about stuff that matters, not stuff that sort of almost maybe gives an inaccurate and misleading statement more plausible deniability, only it doesn’t really.
We’ve come somewhat off topic, but if you’re asserting something in the SoTU and/or you’re making the case to send troops into harm’s way–you really shouldn’t lie or parse the truth with a Cuisinart.
I didn’t even know you existed until your SECOND note to me. And after YOU pestered ME into replying, you’re now going to tell me to take it elsewhere?
How’s this: I’ll go back to pretending you don’t exist & you see if you can follow suit. That way I don’t have to explain things to you again & you don’t have to pretend to be site moderator.
Rilkefan: Well, if he was trying to bluff us, I’d have to assume it was a bluff to make us not attack and work out some kind of NoKorea type aid deal, or simply get us to vote for removal of sanctions.
And while the short-run question (and one with the most smarm opportunity) is to wonder how he feels to have been called*, the best question (and one that poker players really want to know at the table) is how others will react to our calling of that bluff. You’d have to ask Libya about that.
*Then again, Poker is a poor metaphor for the anti-war crowd, since it would preclude the players working together against another. UN-style. However, if continued, I’d guess what has the anti-war crowd ticked is that the President went all-in to call a bluff when less of his stack could have had the same affect (but not so much of one on the other players, perhaps).
One other thing: someone correct me if I’m wrong here, but I was under the strong impression that Wilson had _already_ mentioned that the Nigieriens had talked to an Iraqi about trade (though never explicitly uranium). I’m pretty sure I remember hearing this issue come up before now (the only difference is that now we have a name). So, one more time: is there any extant evidence anywhere that the Nigierien assumption that trade=uranium, given the admitted lack of followup of any sort by Iraq, was accurate? And if it _was_ accurate, does the lack of followup comport well with the assumption that Iraq was pretty strongly seeking enriched uranium, enough so to put in the SotU?
Sorry for the snarky tone, but you WERE the one asking *ME* for details.
but I was under the strong impression that Wilson had _already_ mentioned that the Nigieriens had talked to an Iraqi about trade (though never explicitly uranium).
You are correct. In his briefing to the US Mission to Niger, the CIA and State Dept, Wilson noted an unnamed Iraqi had approached a Niger businessman, urging him to participate in a trade delegation conference. The businessman thought the Iraqi might be using this as a pretext to talk uranium sales. Regardless, the conference never took place and it is unclear if yellowcake was ever on the agenda.
In Amb. Wilson’s recent book, he was able to put a name (Baghdad Bob) to the unnamed Iraqi.
He had to save something for the book…otherwise why read it.
;p
Sorry for the snarky tone, but you WERE the one asking *ME* for details.
Fair enough.
BTW, I thought the last paragraph in your blast of 2:54 was great repartee. Glad you apologized (unless, your post of 3:02 is directed to someone else and then my face is red) because I didn’t quite know how I was going to answer it.
Hey, guys. I just got a call from Venezuelan friend of mine who happens to work for Chavez.
Now that I’ve had time to reflect about the phone call, I think it might conceivably be possible that my Venezuelan friend was calling to ask if I would help assist in a communist takeover of South America.
“So, one more time: is there any extant evidence anywhere that the Nigierien assumption that trade=uranium, given the admitted lack of followup of any sort by Iraq, was accurate? And if it _was_ accurate, does the lack of followup comport well with the assumption that Iraq was pretty strongly seeking enriched uranium, enough so to put in the SotU?”
Oh for the love of God, the first thing that leaps to mind when you hear of trade negotiations isn’t uranium. If the offical from Niger thought there it was a pretext for uranium he didn’t just come up with that on his own. And what is this ‘lack of follow up’ thing? The offical in Niger is the one who didn’t follow up. Once the people who trust diplomacy so much evidence zero comprehension of how it works. If you are an Iraqi diplomat who is illegally seeking uranium you go in person and feel out the official you are trying to get to help you. If they don’t respond to your overtures, you don’t ‘follow up’ by trying to force the issue. That would be idiotic. You are trying to get them to engage in something very illegal. You are trying to get them to do something which if revealed could cause huge trouble for your country. You don’t ‘follow up’ with them if they refuse to go along. You drop it like a hot potato and hope they don’t tell anyone. Or you hope that if they do tell someone, it will be Mr. Wilson who won’t follow up on it.
“Again, Mr. Holsclaw, the British intelligence claim was based on the forged Italian documents. Our CIA had serious doubts –rightly so–about their authenticity and passed those concerns on to British Intelligence.”
No need for the again, you are clearly confusing different issues. British intelligence doesn’t tell us where they got their information. They share information, very rarely/never actual sources. I have actually dealt with the dangers that brings in believing that you have independent verification when you are all sharing the same source in articles on my blog some months ago. In any case, British intelligence claims to have other sources for that infromation. British intelligence still stands by their assessment even after the revelation of the forged documents. You have no idea one way or another where that information came from and neither does the CIA. But British intelligence claims to have sources other than the forged documents. Which makes perfect sense since Wilson had similar information also not linked to the forged documents. In fact, we don’t need to rely on any intelligence agency now. Wilson himself is giving us the information that Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf was seeking trade talks which at least one official from Niger interpreted as having uranium on the agenda.
And if you want to talk about ‘follow through’ notice that the offical from Niger did not encourage talk about uranium and that Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf did not bother to have other trade talks. That strongly suggests that normal trade negotiations weren’t foremost on Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf’s mind.
ASDF, I suspect that your 8:05 comment is a lie intended to draw scorn upon the notion that a trade official might suspect that uranium is on the agenda without Mohammed Saeed Sahhaf specifically mentioning it. Do you believe that it is impossible or even difficult to intentionally allude to things without stating them. That would be a very interesting thing for an intelligent person to believe….
How do you know if I’m lying or not?
What’s your fax number? I’ll send you some documents to prove it.
On second thought, I’ll fax the documents to Edward.
Then you can reference my story in a speech, but say “Edward has learned that Hugo Chavez recently sought to foment a Communist takeover of South America.”
I can’t believe all the discussion about this topic…
It is a well known “FACT” that Saddam Hussien had no interest whatsoever in obtaining nuclear weapons. Neither does Iran for that matter…
Yes… sarcasm!
Nuke Plant
What is the question here? If it is about false information in the SOTU, the above is a much better case. Yes, Greenpeace, but it has the primary sources.
Did the President know the information was false? Probably not. Did somebody know it was false? Absolutely, unless a total lack of evidence can somehow support an assertion.
The SOTU will have a footnote forever, (I have all the SOTU’s on my hardrive, with notes), “this statement was not true, and never had any supporting evidence at all.”
Sebastian Holsclaw: Do you believe that it is impossible or even difficult to intentionally allude to things without stating them.
Are you talking about the Iraqi overtures to trade, or about the president’s allusion to mushroom clouds in the SOTU? Oh wait, I get it: the Bush Administration gets a pass if they don’t state things explicitly and the American people draw false conclusions that serve the president’s purposes. For anyone else, infer, speculate, assume the worst! It’s perfectly fine to invade countries based on speculation, forgery, and innuendo, but calling the president on the above is just not kosher.
But British intelligence claims to have sources other than the forged documents.
Oh, that one’s a fake, but we’ve got some more around here… What’s that? Oh, no, we can’t actually let you see them or, you know, check their authenticity. But trust us, would we lie to you? Again, we mean?
How’s that saying go? “Fool me once…”