Libby Guilty

Parent Cafe
121

<p>“ANd it is never their fault…the intelligence was faulty, but when they are told that, they bash the people telling them that…”</p>

<p>Hey, they’re just “staying the course”, preparing for the day that they will cut’n’run. You see it works like this - if the hostile, aggressive escalation of fighting by the occupying forces doesn’t go well, they can blame it on the occupied and say they don’t deserve better. Or alternatively, argue that there are aren’t enough occupiers yet, and double the aggression. If things are momentarily pacified, they can say, “see it’s working”, and keep the aggressors in place a little longer (since they’ve now set it up for the neighboring country’s influence to increase), or, alternatively, leave, making it possible for the occupied to control their own country in ways the aggressor doesn’t like.</p>

<p>But, regardless, eventually they will cut’n’run, it’s only a matter of time.</p>

122

<p>ASAP, perhaps the editorials from the papers you cited did get their material from their news pages, but, from looking at at least the one from the Philadelphia Inquirer, this would be an indictment against the quality of its news reporting. Here is a clip:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Notice anything? Like they completely ignore the fact that Wilson’s report did bolster the claim that Iraq was looking to buy yellow cake (as seen in the Senate report)? Like they completely ignore the fact that the CIA was in general agreement that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program and that the yellow cake issue was not a major part of it, nor were the forged documents the only source for the Niger intelligence (as seen in the NIE)? Like they are totally wrong about the Brits sources regarding Niger being the forged documents (as seen by Butler report). </p>

<p>This is truly pathetic editorializing and, if as you claim that this is consistent with what is in their papers, it is scandalous news reporting - but I’m not really surprised. One would think from this that they get their information from the lefty blogs. I wonder how many of their reporters have ever bothered to read any of these reports? Clearly the Wash Post editorial board has.</p>

<p>It is no surprise after reading schlock like this that people have distorted views about the truth in this matter.</p>

123

<p>Oh…the “truth in this matter”! ROTFL! :D</p>

124

<p>Actually, FF, the Inquirer did a better job of actually reading the source materials than your bloggers did. </p>

<p>As admitted in the Senate report, The only aspect in which Wilson’s report “bolstered” the bogus Iraq/yellowcake claim was that Wilson did confirm that a former Nigerien official was telling people that an Iraqi delegation had sought to meet with him a year or two earlier to discuss “expanding economic relations” between the two countries, which could have meant selling yellowcake, although he didn’t claim that anyone ever even mentioned yellowcake or uranium to him. (We learned after the invasion that the Iraqi delegation visited four or five African countries and had nothing to do with uranium.) Wilson discounted the significance of this report in relation to the “Iraq seeking uranium” claim; the American Ambassador to Niger discounted it, and they both agreed that there was nothing to the story - which is what Wilson reported when he returned. Only the politicized hacks in Washington elected to consider the “Iraqi delegation” story to have any conceivable significance - and then only because it was the only thing from Wilson’s report which didn’t expressly debunk the story. I know you like to cling to the “Wilson’s report confirmed Iraq’s efforts to buy uranium from Niger” claim but in fact it didn’t, both because that’s expressly not what he reported and we know from hindsight that the story was and is a crock.</p>

<p>The Butler Report is as much en embarrassment to Great Britain as our own agencies’ sacrifice of professionalism for political favor is to us. (Not all of them. State never bought the lame yellowcake story.) Iraq was not “seeking to obtain uranium in Africa” in 2002. The “evidence” in support of the claim was, and is, to use your term, “pathetic.”</p>

125

<p>AM, I see that you are joining CGM and TD in “insightful contribution” category. Keep up the good work.</p>

<p>Here’s a sample of some truth to debunk the editorial form the Inquirer.
From the British Butler report:

</p>

<p>Of course, I’m sure you would rather going on believing whatever you want to believe - just like the Inquirer’s editorial board.</p>

<p>Edit: add kluge to the list of those believing what he wants to believe and if official reports get in his way then damn the reports as being “hacks”</p>

126

<p>From the Senate report (Wilson is the “former Ambassador”):

</p>

<p>The “evidence” which FF states “bolstered” the bogus yellowcake story?

Mind you, the claim in the 2003 State of the Union Speech was that “Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” - and this is “bolstered” by a claim that 4 years before a former African official met with an Iraqi delegation and didn’t discuss uranium? </p>

<p>The response of the “intelligence community” to Wilson’s report?

[quote]

An INR (State Dept.) analyst said when he saw the report he believed that it corroborated the INR?s position, but said that the “report could be read in different ways.” He said the report was credible, but did not give it a lot of attention because he was busy with other things.<a href=“The%20State%20Department%20was%20able%20to%20put%202%20and%202%20together%20and%20conclude%20that%20a%20%22Niger%20to%20Iraq%22%20uranium%20sale%20simply%20made%20no%20sense,%20and%20never%20bit%20on%20it.”>/quote</a>

[quote]
DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.<a href=“The%20other%20guys%20were%20as%20clueless%20as%20Great%20Britain’s%20Butler%20report%20authors,%20and%20as%20eager%20to%20cling%20to%20anything%20which%20didn’t%20expressly%20rule%20out%20the%20possibility%20of%20the%20story%20being%20true,%20despite%20the%20simple%20logistical%20absurdity%20of%20it.%20%20You%20can%20bet%20they’re%20not%20bragging%20about%20it%20now,%20eh?%20%20%22Hacks%22%20might%20be%20too%20kind%20a%20description.”>/quote</a></p>

127

<p>Kluge, it’s impossible to convince the “Baghdad Bobs” of the Right Wing. But they spin better than the agitator in my washing machine.</p>

<p>FF, not only I have made long detailed & footnoted posts on the merits of Bush/Iraq/Wilson/et alia, one so long that I had to break it into three separate posts, I also contribute widely across CC for the main purpose of the establishment. The political discussions are a sideline. An interesting sideline, but nonetheless not the raison d’etre for my presence here.<br>
You doggedly continue to cite points that have been thoroughly refuted many times and that virtually nobody outside of Dick Cheney’s group of dark minions and the wingnuts of the Freepers and the NR believe.</p>

<p>Ta ta for now.</p>

128

<p>The administration said the intell was faulty…what more do you want FF?</p>

<p>Its almost biblical the loyalty</p>

129

<p>Notice how quiet the blog-echos get when the source material they claim supports their long-discredited positions is dug out and exposed for what it really says?</p>

130

<p>One trend I’ve noticed here that always bothers me is when the neocons here ask you to provide them links for things that should be common knowledge, (and do it in a sarcastic tone, usually), then when you do, they don’t say a word in response…not even any acknowledgement, much less a thank you. I think there’s more to this than just simple rudeness and hostility. </p>

<p>They operate on belief, not facts or cognition. Anything that challenges their beliefs simply doesn’t register with them. I remember in the Iraq for Sale thread, there was a poster arguing that he didn’t want to see the movie, even if everything in it were true, because seeing it might shake his “faith” in the president and his party. The important thing is to maintain belief, even if it means avoiding facts.</p>

131

<p>The amazing thing is that the left posts stuff like what kluge did and just presume that it refutes everything that opposes their view.</p>

<p>I think you need to go back to the basics.</p>

<p>1) Joe Wilson was peddling his story that he was a) sent by Cheney (and subsequently denied that his wife had anything to do with his appointment), b) that his report refuted all notions of the uranium from Niger issue c) Cheney/Bush ignored his report and continued to peddle the Niger issue. d) He also reported that the documents were forgeries</p>

<p>What the Senate found out was: a) Cheney did not know about Wilson per se and that indeed he was nominated by his wife b)his report of denials of a consummated sale were received with yawns because that would be the expected response when asking any country if they were doing illegal transactions, but agencies other than INR did take the admission that there was presumed contact to attempt to buy uranium as noteworthy. c) his report was so unremarkeable that it was never conveyed to Cheney. d) he lied about uncovering the forgeries since he never even had access to the documents. In his Senate testimony he covered this lie up by saying “he misspoke”.</p>

<p>2)The administration responded to Wilson’s bogus allegations by a) truthfully denying that Cheney had sent him and by implication should have paid greater attention to his report; they did this by showing that it was his wife who was instrumental is the assignment. b) declassified the portions of the NIE that showed that in no way did Wilson’s report debunk the uranium from Africa angle in the minds of most of the intelligence agencies. </p>

<p>Kluge and the rest may claim that the above is not is not accurate, but merely making this claim does not make it true. A thorough reading of the Senate report and the Butler report is warranted to get at the facts. Of course, if you don’t like what these reports say, you can always just wave them off as clueless as kluge has done - the favored technique of the left in dealing with facts contrary to one’s own beliefs.</p>

132

<p>In terms of dealing with facts contrary to beliefs, lets look at FF’s claims and the written documentation:</p>

<p>What FF said:<br>

  1. Joe Wilson was peddling his story that he was a) sent by Cheney.</p>

<p>What Wilson actually said (in Times piece which started the fuss):
“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.”</p>

<p>The Senate report:
Officials from the CIA’s DO CounterproliferationDivision (CPD) told Committee staff that in response to questions from the Vice President’s Office and the Departments of State and Defense on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal, CPD officials discussed ways to obtain additional information… CPD decided to contact a former ambassador to Gabon who had a posting early in his career in Niger.</p>

<p>Bottom line: Wilson didn’t claim what FF says he said. What Wilson actually said was entirely accurate.</p>

<p>FF: Cheney did not know about Wilson per se </p>

<p>Senate Report: In early March 2002, the Vice President asked his morning briefer for an update on the Niger uranium issue. In response, on March 5,2002, WINPAC analysts sent an analytic update to the briefer which noted that the government of Niger said it was making all efforts to ensure that its uranium would be used for only peaceful purposes. … The update also noted that the CIA would be debriefing a source who may have information related to the alleged sale on March 5. … Later that day, two CIA DO officers debriefed the former ambassador who had returned from Niger the previous day.</p>

<p>Bottom line: Cheney may not have known about Wilson by name, but he was advised that Wilson was about to be debriefed about his trip on March 5, 2002, as in fact occurred.</p>

<p>FF: Wilson “denied that his wife had anything to do with his appointment”, /// indeed he was nominated by his wife </p>

<p>The exact nature of the communications with Wilson’s wife within the CIA are unclear. She was definitely consulted about her husband’s qualifications and availability. You use the terms “nominated” which exceeds anything in the Senate Report. There are no contemporaneous writings that have been disclosed; what is known is that Wilson’s wife did not have the authority to “send” him on her own authority; that decision was made at a level at the CIA above her. Cheney’s characterization of Wilson’s fact-finding trip - the second Wilson was sent on to Africa - as a “junket” was just, well - Cheney being Cheney.</p>

<p>FF: b) that his report refuted all notions of the uranium from Niger issue // his report was so unremarkeable that it was never conveyed to Cheney. </p>

<p>Wilson: “Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.”</p>

<p>Senate Report: He told Committee staff that he had told both U.S.officials he thought there
was “nothing to the story.” Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick told Committee staff she recalled the former ambassador saying “he had reached the same conclusions that the embassy had reached, that it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.”</p>

<p>FF:Cheney/Bush ignored his report and continued to peddle the Niger issue. </p>

<p>Wilson: “Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president’s office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government… The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.”</p>

<p>Senate Report: The intelligence report based on the former ambassador’s trip was disseminated on March 8,2002. … DO officials also said they alerted WINPAC analysts when the report was being disseminated because they knew the high priority of the issue. The report was widely distributed in routine channels…
…CIA’s briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President’s previous questions about the issue.</p>

<p>FF: He also reported that the documents were forgeries///he lied about uncovering the forgeries</p>

<p>Wilson’s piece in the Times: “As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government and were probably forged.”</p>

<p>—Fun as this is, I’m off for a while and won’t be able to play for a week or so. See you all when I get back.</p>

133

<p>i admit I have not read the posts here, but 131 posts later does anyone have trouble with the fact that Scooter Libby was found guilty of lying under oath to a grand jury by a a panel of his peers and is now a convicted felon?</p>

<p>I am not sure why others were not indicted but we have to have faith that Fitzgerald felt that he did not have sufficient evidence to take further action at this time.</p>

134

<p>kluge, very clever how you switch back and forth between what Wilson said in his Senate testimony versus what he said in the Times versus what he said in the Post. The fact that none of it is consistent should be a tip off as to his credibility.</p>

<p>Example:

</p>

<p>But what did he say in the Post? Answer: Frome the Senate Intelligence report:

</p>

<p>OK, don’t take my word for what is in the various reports, here is what the Washington Post said in 2004 (in a news article - not an editorial):</p>

<p>

</p>

135

<p>FF you are right…wilson was a big fibber and Bush and his cronies were perfect in all things</p>

<p>that make you feel better</p>

<p>history will tell who was the worse…and daily we are seeing the follies of this administration</p>

136

<p>He’s just a convicted felon, the first White House employee convicted for acts committed while in the White House for 130 years. It’s really no big deal.</p>

<p>There are bigger liars out there.</p>

137

<p>Yeah, and Libby didn’t lie. He forgot. Can’t you guys give this guy a break? </p>

<p>Just because he was the most trusted right-hand man & Chief-of -Staff of our Vice-President, everybody is making such a big deal.</p>

<p>And what power do vice- presidents really have, anyway. ;)</p>