How About A Few Facts With That Coffee?

The Times promotes the story of Rove and the Plame leak with another long story lacking in new developments.

However, we find plenty to mock:

Mr. Bush, who once said he would fire anyone on his staff who had knowingly leaked the name of a C.I.A. operative, Valerie Wilson, also known by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, ignored a question about Mr. Rove posed to him on Tuesday by a reporter on the edges of an Oval Office meeting with the prime minister of Singapore.

The President's words are here, and he said "if the person has violated law".  We have yet to see whether the actual pledge, rather than the Times restatement, is still operative.

Mr. Rove can take heart in one fact: so far every other senior official caught up by the cascading series of questions that were touched off by 16 words in Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address has survived, even prospered. Three of Mr. Bush's closest advisers were involved in the drafting or reviewing of the now-discredited language, which said: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The Times can take heart in one fact - although they wrote many articles about the "16 Words" when that controversy was hot, they only wrote one weak, concealed follow-up announcing that - oh, my - maybe Bush was right about those 16 Words after all.

But Mr. Rove's case is a lot more complicated. By all accounts he had nothing to do with the wording in the speech. Instead, it appears he may have been part of the White House effort to push back after Mr. Wilson wrote a July 7, 2003, Op-Ed article in The New York Times declaring that Mr. Bush's description of Mr. Hussein's search for uranium was false, and that it ignored information that he passed on to the C.I.A. casting doubt on the story about an Iraqi search for uranium.

Oh, for heaven's sake - it was July 6!  And there was a bit more to be pushed back then the Times troubles us with here.  Maybe the Times could start with Wilson's leak to Nick Kristof for his May 6, 2003 column - since it launched Wilson's star, and eventually led to a question that caught Ms. Rice off-balance on a Sunday talk-show, maybe the Times could explain the errors in Kristof's reporting and the lack of follow-up.

The entire contretemps at the White House this week centers on whether Mr. Rove tried to discredit Mr. Wilson by suggesting that his mission to Niger was the product of nepotism, and that Ms. Wilson had arranged for it. Why a mission to Niger would be such a plum assignment is still a mystery, but the Senate Intelligence Committee, in a report last year, quotes a State Department official as saying that Ms. Wilson had suggested sending her husband. She denies it.

"She" denies it?  I know Joe Wilson did, but I don't recall seeing her cited previously.  No matter - is the Times going to leave this as "she said, they said"?  Although the Senate Democrats would not vote on the specific conclusion, they did not dispute the evidence, which included a memo she wrote extolling his qualifications and a memo by an INR staffer describing a meeting at which she introduced her husband.  The INR staffer's memo told Colin Powell that Joe Wilson's wife was involved in selecting her, but did not give her last name or mention her covert status.

And why do we care if his wife was involved?  The Times pushes the nepotism line, which has us as puzzled as they.  But Walter Pincus, in an article which also includes Joe Wilson as an anonymous source, had written this in the WaPo on June 12, 2003:

However, a senior CIA analyst said the case "is indicative of larger problems" involving the handling of intelligence about Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs and its links to al Qaeda, which the administration cited as justification for war. "Information not consistent with the administration agenda was discarded and information that was [consistent] was not seriously scrutinized," the analyst said.

So, a CIA analyst is criticizing the President anonymously in June for mishandling intelligence.  In July, a former ambassador comes forward, also criticizing the Administration's handling of intelligence.  Is the Ambassador simply a professional, detached, objective careerist from the State Department offering his own point of view? 
Or is it at all relevant in assessing his credibility to know that he is in bed with a CIA professional?  Does knowing that give a hint as to what side he might be on in this discussion?

Not in Timesworld.

I CAN STOP ANYTIME:

Let's rip the Times editorial while we are at it:

...it is something else entirely when officials peddle disinformation for propaganda purposes or to harm a political adversary. And Karl Rove seems to have been playing that unsavory game with the C.I.A. officer Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband, Joseph Wilson IV, a career diplomat who ran afoul of President Bush's efforts to justify the invasion of Iraq. An e-mail note provided by Time magazine to the federal prosecutor investigating the case shows that Mr. Rove's aim in talking about Ms. Wilson to Matthew Cooper, a Time reporter, was to discredit Mr. Wilson, perhaps to punish him.

Well, what "disinformation" was Rove putting out?  The Times editors lack the character to excerpt the e-mail in any detail, so here we go, excerpting Newsweek:

Cooper wrote that Rove offered him a "big warning" not to "get too far out on Wilson." Rove told Cooper that Wilson's trip had not been authorized by "DCIA"—CIA Director George Tenet—or Vice President Dick Cheney. Rather, "it was, KR said, wilson's wife, who apparently works at the agency on wmd [weapons of mass destruction] issues who authorized the trip." Wilson's wife is Plame, then an undercover agent working as an analyst in the CIA's Directorate of Operations counterproliferation division. (Cooper later included the essence of what Rove told him in an online story.) The e-mail characterizing the conversation continues: "not only the genesis of the trip is flawed an[d] suspect but so is the report. he [Rove] implied strongly there's still plenty to implicate iraqi interest in acquiring uranium fro[m] Niger ... "

So, the "16 Words" might be correct - that panned out. 

Cheney did not initiate this trip - lots of newsies had this wrong (Wolf Blitzer had not gotten the memo as of July 13) - but that checked out.  In fact, Tenet made that announcement hours after Rove spoke with Cooper.

And Ms. Plame was involved in some way, although Rove was wrong that she "authorized" it.  Even the Times is catching up to the significance of this - in the paragraph above, they note that maybe this is meant to "discredit Wilson, perhaps to punish him".

"Perhaps" to punish?  Based on what, other than Joe Wilson's bloviatings?   The Times focuses on the "discredit" theory a bit later:

Mr. Rove said the origins of Mr. Wilson's mission were "flawed and suspect" because, according to Mr. Rove, Mr. Wilson had been sent to Niger at the suggestion of his wife, who works for the Central Intelligence Agency. To understand why Mr. Rove thought that was a black mark, remember that the White House considers dissenters enemies and that the C.I.A. had cast doubt on the administration's apocalyptic vision of Iraq's weapons programs.

Well, yes - if the Times wants to admit that there were two sides in a factional dispute, and that a hint to Wilson's true allegiance might have been contained in the fact that he was married to someone in the CIA, then we are in agreement.  But how is that "disinformation"?

"Disinformation" is what Wilson gave Nick Kristof when he gave him (anonymously, and with his wife there at breakfast) the background for this column:

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. In February 2002, according to someone present at the meetings, that envoy reported to the C.I.A. and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged.

The envoy reported, for example, that a Niger minister whose signature was on one of the documents had in fact been out of office for more than a decade.

Wrong, wrong, and wrong - Dick Cheney did not ask for an investigation; his office did not receive the result.  Per both Tenet's statement and the SSCI report, Wilson's report was inconclusive.  And the forgeries Wilson masterfully debunked by pointing out the phony signature?  Wilson later wrote that he never saw them, which we believe since they were not in Washington until the fall of 2002.

And how did Kristof get so many points wrong?  There is an easy explanation - although, as a diplomat one might think that he is a professional communicator, Wilson explained to Paula Zahn that "those are either misquotes or misattributions if they're attributed to me." 

Or disinformation.  Against which, Rove was pushing back.  Waiting for Wilson to auto-discredit took about a year.

 

Comments

[ArminTamzarian]

Good points. You'd think that if the CIA were carrying on its own foreign policy and actively working to undermine the President's, this would be a great concern to the press lefties, who spent most of the Cold War complaining about the CIA's dastardly deeds throughout the world. You'd think that even if they didn't have a clue what was going on, things like Michael "Just give bin Laden everything he wants" Scheuer's book would make that obvious to them. But no, they'd rather just make contorted, unfounded accusations that the dark and evil Karl Rove raped the pretty white Plame rather than look at what the hell the CIA's doing. Why, that might actually be performing a useful service advancing our national security, and we can't have the press doing that.

[RiverRat]

Here's a recap of the play:

Wilson NYT Editors/Krugman to Monstermouth Miller to half the reporters inside the Beltway to Novak to Rove to Cooper! Hoorah! Touchdown!

[AJStrata]

Tom,

Great work trying to beat back the MSM's obsession with Rove. But honestly the NYTimes is never going to get over this and what people need to focus on is Plame and Wilson. You and I both have felt for years this was more a rogue CIA agent trying to tip public opinion than it was the outing of Plame.

I humbly suggest you keep the focus of all your posts on that. And everyone needs to stop calling it 'Rove' this and 'Rove' that. Rove's role in this is over.

What other classified information was released if it was not Plame's employer??

Come on by the site if you have the time and see what I think it the focus of the investigation.

Keep up the good work!

[kim]

Look:

Saddam's urge to mass destruction had been dammed by No-Fly Zones and UN monitoring but his fervor was rising and the defenses crumbling. It was not outrageous to fear him acquiring nuclear capability.
That he simply hadn't acquired them yet was not fair enough grounds for criticizing the decision for invasion.

Joe Wilson lies and plays dirty. Nyah, nyah, a boo-boo.
=========================

[vnjagvet]

I think the NYT's attention to this matter and its manic focus on Rove betrays its concern.

It seems to me that Fitzgerald's focus is on a certain Times reporter, Joe Wilson and his wife.

Most of the WHPress fury is an attempt to deflect attention from this uh problem.

[Jeff]

1) The SSCI and the British report are not neutral reports on the 16 words controversy and on Wilson's role. They are participants in the controversy. So it won't do to point to the fact that the CIA was a participant in the controversy -- which I accept --but act as though the Republicans in the Senate were not.

2)No small amount of the case against Joe Wilson in the SSCI was based on the INR Memo and the INR analyst's note (presumable more or less the same thing). But have the doubts about that Memo and analyst -- reported in the WaPo in December 2003 -- been addressed? Your way of presenting this too is somewhat misleading.

3) You want disinformation in what Rove told Cooper, from what we can tell so far? How about that his wife authorized Wilson's trip. The difference between "she was involved in sending him" and "she authorized his trip" is significant -- and that this is no slip is shown by the fact that repeated efforts to make it out that Plame authorized Wilson's trip have been made, including by Sen. Roberts. I also believe that the implication that there is still plenty to implicate Iraqi interest in Niger's yellowcake is disinformation, though I recognize this is more controversial here.

4) Now, as for the Vice President's role, it is true that he did not INITIATE the trip itself. But that's not what Wilson said in his op-ed. What he said was, "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." And guess what? That matches with what the SSCI report says on p. 39. So it seems that Cheney's office did indeed ask for an investigation. Moreover, neither in his article nor in the passage you cite from Kristof does Wilson say that Cheney received the result. That would be sop, in the article. NOthing in the excerpt from Kristof. As for the forgeries, yes, Wilson was wrong on that count that he was involved in uncovering the fact that the documents were forged. The documents were forged. That's not a piece of disinformation. That's as much of a fact as we've got.

I will also recall again that it now appears that the ur-source for the alleged information that Plame's job at the CIA was well-known -- Cliff May -- was probably also participating (or being played) in the Bush administration's pushback and not merely reporting on a neutral fact, especially if, as your timeline says, May received the information in July of 2003.

[TM]

You want disinformation in what Rove told Cooper, from what we can tell so far? How about that his wife authorized Wilson's trip. The difference between "she was involved in sending him" and "she authorized his trip" is significant..

Oh, bother my brain lock. I had skated past that in two earlier posts, but it does merit a mention in the context of this post.

My argument would be that Cooper eventually reported " These officials have suggested that she was involved in her husband's being dispatched Niger to investigate...", so he sorted out the truth. And we don't know what caveats Rove provided, in addition to "double super secret" - I saw the word "apparently", so since Cooper eventually got it right, I figure, no harm, no foul - it is hard to see that ROve intended the word "authorize" in the final story, since neither Cooper, Novak, nor Pincus got that message.

repeated efforts to make it out that Plame authorized Wilson's trip have been made, including by Sen. Roberts.

The SSCI report, in the Chairman's section the Dems would not accept, used the word "suggested".

Roberts may have said something else somewhere else, of course.

[Jeff]

TM - Thanks for the reply. But hey, what about 2), 3), and 4)? Also, I would add that Cooper's email shows Rove performing a rhetorical slight of hand in denying that Tenet or the VP authorized Wilson's trip. True, but that either of them did was not Wilson's claim; his claim -- based on what he was told -- was that the vp's office wanted the Iraq-Niger question investigated, and his trip was part of that investigation. Rove denies something that has not been asserted, to make it sound like he is denying something that has, namely that Cheney's office got the ball rolling on Niger-uranium-Iraq. And in fact, to the best of our knowledge, that still appears to be true, does it not?

[kim]

That doesn't change the fact that Wilson misrepresented what he had reported, misunderstood what was happening with Saddam, and called the President a liar on very parochial and delusional grounds.
==============================

[Crank]

BTW, if you haven't seen it, the top story at RedState right now compares TM to "Perseus wandering through the earth slaying the mighty Titans."

Don't let it go to your head - next thing, you'll be writing an autobiography and calling it "The Politics of Truth"

[kim]

Hercules and Hydra.
====================

[Granddaddy]

Does the New York Times' fascination with this story (or lack thereof) remind anyone else of Al Qaqaa?

I guess as long as this "outing" monopolizes water cooler talk, no one in America will have time to talk about the rapidly shrinking defecit and the success of Bush's tax cuts.

[kim]

I do think this emphasis on Rove is a distraction in an attempt to temper what Fitzgerald is coming out with soon. Their only tactic is a political attack on Rove; the legal one isn't there.
==============================

[perfectsense]

The spirit and methods of Jayson Blair live on at the New York Times.

[kim]

It is a pathological inbred growth.

His ancestors knew that publishing truth gave the power to make money. He believes money has the power to effect truth.
===========================

[Rider]

Notwithstanding that Mr. Fitzgerald has no interest whatever in any trip to Niger or anything Mr. Wilson said or did (You weren't thinking Wilson was the focus of the investigation, were you?), the Niger uranium claim is still false. Yes, George Tenet did not have to fall on his sword over the 16 words for naught:

http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1595

"Niger Uranium: Still a False Claim" by Joseph Cirincione, Carnegie Endowment

[Pat]

Rider: Read what Bush said.

"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Wilson did note an Iraqi attempt to buy from Niger. in his report to the CIA, but not in his NYT op-ed.

But note that Bush said Africa. Niger is not the only producer of uranium in Africa, but your source only discusses Niger.

Your source also discloses that Saddam already had 100s of tons of yellowcake. What was to stop him from buying AQ Khan's technology and processing that, once the inspectors had been kicked out and sanctions lifted?

In all this minimization of Saddam's nuclear ambitions we forget how close Libya came to getting a nuclear weapon. It wasn't the IEAE that stopped them, but John Bolton's Stategic Proliferation Initiative and Gaddafi's fear of suffering the same fate as Saddam.

[Rider]

This case is not about Niger, nor about a trip to Niger. It's not about Joe Wilson, what he said or did. Joe Wilson did not compromise the security of American agents. Joe Wilson did not out a CIA cover firm. Joe Wilson is not the target of the investigation.

You can discuss the politics of this all you want, but there are serious security issues involved here and serious legal issues as well.

It's about to be Come to Jesus Time for somebody.

[sniveling lurker]

So many folks waxing so many lies. As I understand the majority of the above comments, this incident apparently took place in an absolute vacuum in that we are to completely discount both individuals' life work; in the case of Rove, a long-documented career made of just these kind of dishonorable (behind-the-scenes innuendo) smear campaigns, and for Wilson, a well-documented honorable career as a diplomat in the service of this great nation. I guess neither counts for much when people have already decided what they want to believe, eh?

[kim]

It's hard to say to which Joe has dedicated his career more, lying or opportunism. Loyal not to the truth, not to his employers, not to his wife, not even to himself.

Karl Rove, who has won more by being a brilliant political strategist than by being a tricky tactician. Loyal, and not known for lying.

Yeah, fairly easy choice.
=================================

[Rob Crocker]

Rider and lurker,

So what exactly did Rove do? How did he out a (covert?) agent?

By Cooper's email it says that Rove, being quick because he was leaving for vacation, warned the Times to not get too far out on the story. He then provided two reasons not to go out too far. 1) The DCIA and the VP were NOT the ones who sent Wilson. 2) Wilson's proferred conclusions were wrong.

Now Rove's comments were made in the light of two things.
First, Novak's column had already gone out on the wire and so the content of it was probably already known to him. Heck that might have had Rove ask someone "who the heck is Valerie Plame?".
Second, Tenet's statement was being prepared to be read to counter Wilson's claim about who sent him on the mission.

Add to the fact that Cooper told Rove that he wanted to talk about Social Security and then steered the conversation to the Wilson affair wouldn't that suggest that Cooper actually had other information that put him on the scent? (Heck, maybe even the Novak column in question.)

Finally, we have to go back to Occam's Razor and ask "Who the heck is Judith Miller protecting?"

Does anyone really think she'd go to jail to "protect" Rove when there's already a huge dog-pile going on and he signed a confidentiality waiver?

Really, you have to view the actions in the light of the information that was out, and coming out, that day.

[jukeboxgrad]

KIM

"It's hard to say to which Joe has dedicated his career more, lying or opportunism"

I guess that's why Dubya's dad sent Wilson a personal note a few years ago that said "I have great respect for you and for your service to our country."

Then again, I realize you probably know more about Wilson than GHWB does.

ROB

You claim Cooper's email quotes Rove as saying "The DCIA and the VP were NOT the ones who sent Wilson." Trouble is, it goes further than that. Cooper quotes Rove as saying Plame "authorized" Wilson's trip. Trouble is, there's no apparent source for that highly exaggerated claim outside of Rove's fertile imagination.

"Novak's column had already gone out on the wire and so the content of it was probably already known to him"

Nice job making all sorts of unwarranted assumptions. There is no serious evidence (unless you can show some) that Novak's article was "on the wire" early Friday morning, i.e., before Rove talked with Cooper.

"Tenet's statement was being prepared to be read to counter Wilson's claim about who sent him on the mission."

Despite lies told to the contrary, Wilson never claimed that Cheney "sent him."

"you have to view the actions in the light of the information that was out, and coming out, that day"

A good start would be to get your basic facts straight.

[kim]

I talk career, you bring up one brief mad moment of his past.

Papa Bush was liberal with thank you notes. You are making a billboard out of a billet.

And someone please tell me a little more about this Baghdad Brouhaha Wilson has ridden past its flood. Was it beau geste or beau moi?

And even if it were honorable, one such episode hardly balances his lifetime scoundrely achievement, nor does it have any pertinence to the present controversy.
================================

[ed]

Hmmm.

@ sniveling lurker

"and for Wilson, a well-documented honorable career as a diplomat in the service of this great nation."

Ok. You got me. That really gave me a laugh.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

@ Rider

1. "Notwithstanding that Mr. Fitzgerald has no interest whatever in any trip to Niger or anything Mr. Wilson said or did (You weren't thinking Wilson was the focus of the investigation, were you?)"

Actually yes I do. Wilson has made a lot of very interesting statements. And there's a reason why the prosecutor is going so hard after Miller.

2. ", the Niger uranium claim is still false. "

Completely incorrect. Bush stated "sought" in "africa". **Wilson** told the CIA that he was told by a Nigerian official that the Iraqi Ambassador was inquiring about Niger's "exports". The only real export that Niger has is yellowcake.

I.e "sought" in Niger, which is in "africa".

3. "Yes, George Tenet did not have to fall on his sword over the 16 words for naught:"

And again completely wrong. Tenet took that position because the CIA could not independently verify the information the British had. Tenet took the view that the President shouldn't base policy decisions on information that didn't come from domestic intelligence agencies. This is in case of adulteration or manipulation of the intelligence by foreign governments.

Which is why Tenet took the blame.

Try getting a better understanding of this stuff.

[jukeboxgrad]

KIM

"Papa Bush was liberal with thank you notes"

I guess he was also liberal with saying things like this: "Your courageous leadership during this period of great danger for American interests and American citizens has my admiration and respect. I salute, too, your skillful conduct of our tense dealings with the government of Iraq....The courage and tenacity you have exhibited throughout this ordeal prove that you are the right person for the job."

"his lifetime scoundrely achievement"

And your documentation for this allegation is where?

ED

Ed, I guess I need to pass along another reminder, just in case someone who wanders in here doesn't immediately see (although it's quite apparent in almost every sentence you write) what a complete waste of time you are. This is documented here (6/18, 2:52 pm).

[sniveling lurker]

"Ok. You got me. That really gave me a laugh." - ed

Interesting, if vacuous, response. In the time prior to the infamous NYT op-ed piece (the point on the calendar that marks when Wilson officially became a right-wing pariah), is there absolutely anything you can provide as evidence to refute my characterization of Wilson as "a well-documented honorable career as a diplomat in the service of this great nation"? Hell, maybe you can. For that matter, perhaps the first President Bush was full of hot air in his praise for the man. Methinks, however, that you are just throwing fecal matter because your diaper is full...

[kim]

Check out the scoundrel who signed Joe Wilson's name to a February 6, 2003 op-ed opposing the war because he thought Saddam would use his chemical and biological WMD on our troops.

Despicable scoundrel.
================================

[jukeboxgrad]

"he thought Saddam would use his chemical and biological WMD on our troops"

It's actually possible that Wilson took some of Bush's statements about WMD at face value (aside from the statements Wilson was able to personally check out in Niger). I realize that in your oversimplified world you can't imagine that Wilson might have been fooled by Bush, in some regards, just like many of the rest of us were.

By the way, believing that Saddam had sufficient WMD to do great harm to our troops on his border is one thing. Believing that Saddam had sufficient and appropriate WMD to do great harm to us thousands of miles away is something else. Bush argued the latter. The article you mention only indicates that Wilson believed the former.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

@ sniveling lurker

Interesting, if vacuous, response. In the time prior to the infamous NYT op-ed piece (the point on the calendar that marks when Wilson officially became a right-wing pariah), is there absolutely anything you can provide as evidence to refute my characterization of Wilson as "a well-documented honorable career as a diplomat in the service of this great nation"?

What I was laughing at was the great specificity of your post. You avoided having to note that Joe Wilson is a serial liar who has lied to almost everyone who has relied on his words.

But hey, you go right on ahead and talk about his long since ended diplomatic career. His career as a liar is going strong.

[ed]

Hmmm.

Ed, I guess I need to pass along another reminder, just in case someone who wanders in here doesn't immediately see (although it's quite apparent in almost every sentence you write) what a complete waste of time you are. This is documented here (6/18, 2:52 pm).

And I'll reply the same as I have before, I'm still laughing at you.

But hey that's impolite. So how's the impeachment of President Bush going? Strange how that whole GannonGate came right back into the news eh? And those Downing Street Memos, who would've thunk it? That they could take down the President like that. I mean it was like watching Jaws again for the first time. I never knew Ted Kennedy could open his mouth that wide. Amazing! Maybe he eats a lot of shrimp scampi or something.

Yeah I should check CNN. I bet it's wall to wall Downing Street Memos all hours of the day and night.

Just think if there wasn't an impeachment or if the Downing Street Memos just kinda disappeared from the news. That would be terrible. Why that would make all those people who pushed so hard, like you did, for the President to be impeached. Why it would make them look like they were complete idiots or total losers. Why it would nearly impossible for them to live down that they based so much energy, effort and just plain illogic on the single word "fixed" written by a functionary in a foreign government. But I guess you're thanking God that didn't happen. I bet you're eagerly watching the news each night about the new developments in the Impeachment.

Oh well. Too bad it turned out how it did. If Bush wasn't being impeached I'd be still laughing at you and wondering what other crock of shit you were trying to push.

And it would be sad to see you in such a situation.

[jukeboxgrad]

Ed: 6/18, 2:52 pm.

[ed]

Hmmmm.

Ed: 6/18, 2:52 pm.

ROFL!

[kim]

JBG: When you say fooled by Bush several posts back you should say fooled by Saddam. There were many smart people besides Bush who either believed that Saddam had WMD or that he wanted them, and they have proven to be correct. So who was fooled? Well, Saddam.

You are edging on sillimess finding an important difference between using WMD there and here. Where have you been for the last several years? The difference between here and there is a $500 plane flight, cheaper with 'miles'.
============================

[jukeboxgrad]

Kim: "There were many smart people besides Bush who either believed that Saddam had WMD or that he wanted them"

There were many smart people besides Bush who thought that holding a gun to Saddam's head was a good idea. However, it was Bush's idea to pull the trigger, when he did and the way he did, and therefore now he owns the consequences, which a lot of people realize aren't so hot.

"Saddam had WMD or that he wanted them"

Nice job pretending there isn't a big difference. The latter was true, and everyone knew that. Trouble is, Bush built his case for war by claiming the former, which wasn't true. That's a problem.

"they have proven to be correct"

Those who claimed "he wanted them" are correct, which doesn't surprise anyone. Trouble is, those who claimed "Saddam had WMD" were not correct. That leads directly to this.

"You are edging on sillimess finding an important difference between using WMD there and here"

You are right over the edge into outright ignorance to not understand that there's a world of difference. For example, chemical weapons in the form of binary sarin shells have virtually no WMD effectiveness unless fired from an artillery piece. Let me know how many artillery pieces have been hidden in carry-on luggage lately.

If you educate yourself before opening your mouth you'll be able to do a better job keeping your feet out of it. A good place to start would be here.

[kim]

My God, JBG, you refer us back to your point when I first brought up Wilson's belief that Saddam had WMD, and you want us to believe that the important difference between his position then and Bush's is that Wilson didn't think Saddam could use his WMD on us here in the US, whereas Bush thought he could. Do you have any idea just how preposterously you are arguing now?
========================================