Memeorandum


Powered by TypePad

« What Is Happening At The WaPo? | Main | Libby's Team Replies On Disclosure »

April 10, 2006

Comments

The Unbeliever

Warning, warning! Excessive populism alert! AB starting to imitate Bill O'Reilley!

AB, all your FACTs you cited above to support your view were shown to be either inaccurate or false. How on earth does that make people who hold the same view correct? You can't prove your case, you can only assert that many people think like you. I realize you have problems with the whole logic thing, so let me be clear: that does not make you or those similarly minded actually correct.

topsecretk9

Has anyone kept track of how much money Joe is raking in during this whirlwind of speaking engagements?

$12,500. A pop

Patton

Have the left gone mad?

Now they are arguing that Libby tried to pass the uranium issue off as a KEY JUDGMENT of the NIE and they are screaming that is was NOT a key issue.

But wasn't there whole point that Wilson had DEBUNKED a KEY JUDGEMENT OF THE INTELLIGENCE BUSH WAS CITING, NAMELY THE URANIUM JUDGEMENT.

So if it wasn't even a KEY point in the NIE, then why was the left sooo keen on Wilson being a debunker? At best their now saying he debunked a second rate issue on Page 27.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

How in the world could they deny you press credentials?

maryrose

sad:
So true, and to think if he had never gotten to go to Niger he wouldn't be on the speaking tour now. After place in Kerry administration fell through, Val and Joe went to plan B which was her retirement and his Bash Bush tour. What a deplorable human being he is. I sincerely hope he continues to be exposed for the fraud he is and has always been. An opportunist and a bounder.
Rick: Clarice said the NSA results might happen at the end of May. Can't wait for that. Hopefully the dem in North Carolina will be indicted as well as the West Virginia dem rep who has suddenly become richer ala Hil Clinton 1000 to 100,000 cattle future boondogle} Culture of corruption can be laid at the the dems feet. Here's hoping indictments come down rapidly so the PUBLIC will be informed about these grifters in the DEM party.

clarice

Heh! The clerk called to inform me no date has yet been set for the hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. I have to call yet another office to find out if note taking is allowed.

AB

What facts were proven false?

Did Bush declassify information in July 2003 that his best information had shown to be false in March 2003? Except for in Hitchens most recent drunken ravings, yes.

Did he authorize the release of this information not to the general public but to the PRESS (the eeevil NYT, to be exact) through a LEAK? Yes.

Did he then go to the mike repeatedly to say how bad leaks were and how he had no idea who would do such a thing? Yes.

Step back and see the big picture, yellow Un. That's what the general public will do. All your foolish minutia, designed not to uncover the truth, but to cover Bush's ass, means NOTHING to them beside the tragedy of 2,400 dead Americans, 30,000 more maimed or damaged, and our national reputation in tatters for a generation to come.For nothing.

clarice

maryrose, Mac said the investigation on those leaks should be over in May. Personally, I have my doubts about the AG's willingness to take on the fight. Rick, IIRC, thinks otherwise, based on the President's strong response to those leaks made after he told the NYT it would affect national security.
Meanwhile Rocky has gone strangely silent.

vnjagvet

After the performance of Fitzgerald and most of the media on l'affaire Plame, I am surprised only 65 percent of the population thinks All The President's Men are holdovers from the Watergate era. With this kind of coverage, one would have thought it would be more like 95 percent with that notion.

Of course, when you are reading and hearing propaganda and not factual, balanced reporting, it is sometimes hard to keep up.

At least this site has been filled with facts, timelines, actual text of reports, pleadings and primary documentary evidence.

Conclusory statements can be tested against that record and evaluated.

AB at least has to admit that there is a factual basis for the conclusions drawn here, whether s/he likes those conclusions or not.

The same cannot be said for the NYT. Years ago, the NYT was a repository of the factual record, often publishing copies of primary documents and the like. This no longer seems to be the case. That, it seems to me is the real pity.

Jeff

The only way to get that impression is by willfully misinterpreting the obvious.

So then you are acknowledging that the uranium claim was not part of the key judgments of the NIE, right? And yet Libby testified that he understood he was to say that that very passage from p. 24 was a key judgment. Now I'm not sure what you're claiming.

As for where I'm getting it, Sue and MayBee, it's p. 23 of the recent Fitzgerald filing.

clarice

A little sherbet to clear the palate. The Evil That Dare Not Speak Its Name. http://americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=4856

Jeff

Patton - Key Judgments of an NIE is, as they say, a term of art. It refers to a specific part of the NIE, up front, and the content has special significance. It doesn't just mean "important stuff" throughout the document.

Rick Ballard

I wonder if Fitz's declaration in the footnote on page 25 is a "term of art" too:

There is no reason to root around in the files of the NSC or CIA or State Department given that no one at any of those three agencies was aware of any declassification of the NIE prior to July 18, 2003.

That's a pretty sweeping statement that would seem to include Tenet.

clarice

And probably explains Libby's request for all docuemtns relating to discussions with Tenet about the declassification of the NIE..Let me take a wild stab here, the President was aware of the glacial pace of Agency declassifications and decided that he wanted to rebut key points of public contention. He discussed with Tenet that he was authorizing disclosures of those portions while the agency worked on the rest..and was fully advise when he did so, there were no problems to sources and methods re disclosure of the protions he chose to declassify early.

Rick Ballard

Clarice,

What is even cuter is that Fitz seems to be relying wholly on statements made by the fella he indicted for perjury as the basis of who knew what when.

Pages 22-25 are where Fitz does his rather artless political play in order to reach the rather absurd legal point in that footnote on 25.

It might be law somewhere but it sure looks like politics to me.

cathyf
“If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a year.”
Just to put that timeframe in perspective, Saddam invaded Kuwait on Aug 1, 1990, and the air war started on Jan 16, 1991, and the ground offensive on Feb 23. It takes time to move an air force into place, and even more time to move infantry in. With the sanctions regime collapsing, the main thing delaying Saddam's WMD ambitions was his own capriciousness -- every time you feed a weapons scientist & family into a giant shredder it puts your program back a coupla weeks. So the folks claiming that Saddam's programs were not dangerous are saying that we should have bet our own safety and the safety of our neighbors on the hope that Saddam would not develop a little more self-discipline.

cathy :-)

clarice

Using his own formulation: He's either a liar conspiring with President's enemies to punish them for telling the truth, a traitor to his country, or a sloppy writer and thinker...

Javani

AB writes,

"Did Bush declassify information in July 2003 that his best information had shown to be false in March 2003? Except for in Hitchens most recent drunken ravings, yes."

What's you're point? The criticism Bushy was responding to concerned his statement about uranium previous to March 2003, his January 2003 speech.

TexasToast

OK Clarice

Lets look at spinning, shall we? Cecil is quite good at it. (and I’m not defining it as lying – just advocacy)

Cecil says -

Still on that "no rebutting evidence" BS? Dude, do yourself a favor, read it. And while we're on the subject, let's take a look at your "facts."

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I understand that there was no rebutting evidence released to reporters as a result of the bullsession leaks. Its true that the entire NIE was in the process of being released, and, as Cecil says, some ”bits” had been disclosed, but they chose to “defend themselves”, in AM’s parlance, by releasing exculpatory portions to selected reporters on background to be cited as coming from an undisclosed source. That, my friends, looks like a leak. If they didn’t intend the reporters to understand it that way, why this method of disclosure? After all, the whole thing was coming out anyway. It seems however, that they wanted to immediately change the tone and direction of the conversation without waiting. Message management by selective leaking today – not when we get past the bureaucratic delays in “regular” declassification. Looks like an attempt to force the folks who want to bring up caveats to respond after they regained control of the conversation.

Thus, I would say that it is advocacy/spin to say that rebutting evidence was released as a part of and incident to the Libby leak campaign. “Going to” is not the same thing. We were “going to” have a second part of the Intelligence Committee report as well. I’m not holding my breath.

Cecil also says -

No. It [the Niger connection] began with a 1999 Iraqi trade delegation, still unexplained, and pre-dated the forgeries. Furthermore, it's almost certainly true.

Pure spin. These two pieces of evidence make it almost certainly true? In what universe does a trade delegation and a piece by such an unbiased observer as Christoper Hitchens make something “almost certainly true”? Hitchens argument has the same force as the legendary meeting in Prague with Atta.

To Cecil perhaps this is almost certainly true, but stating it as a fact is certainly advocacy/spin. Well done spin – but spin nonetheless.

clarice

Cecil, can defend himself better than I could hope to,TT/
Your choice of the Atta in Prague story is interesting. The media went to such lengths to debunk it the NYT consistently misrepresented the record. Check out edwardjayepstein for details. The only evidence contrary to the Czech intel report was the FBI's notation that Atta's cell phone had been used in Fla when he was reportedly in Prague.I'd hardly call that peruasive.

Similarly, the press has broken its neck to hide and discount all evidence of Saddam working with AQ on 9/11. If you check out Captains Quarters today you will see reference to some mighty peculiar links suggestive that Sadddam was involved in recently released captured documents. Michael Barone has in fact, praised Capt Ed for his fine work on this, though you will not see it in the press anywhere.Click on the hyperlinks here for the details. http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/006726.php

Aside from the Wilson-Kerry-Levin-Rockefeller tango, no one has cherry picked the intel more than the NYT and Demedia and always to convey the impression that the Administration was acting on false information.

clarice

*clarification***If you check out Captains Quarters today you will see reference to some mighty peculiar links in recently released captured documents suggesting that Sadddam was involved in 9/11.***********

larwyn

INAL, my only experience with those who try to not answer direct questions is not in courtroom, but with people within my own corporation, my clients, friends and my family members. One can't very well play "Perry Mason" (Lord, I'm old)with most of these catagories but it is not only possible but warranted that one insist with one's children. None answers and diversions could be evidence of behaviors out of guidelines.

When any of my daughters tried to do the "circular argument"/diversion, I just stopped communicating. When they were young, I hummed "Ring around the Rosie"{*RATR?} as they grew older I made a ditty of "Here we go round the Prickly Pear".{*RTPP?}

Perhaps if all just refused to be sucked into the C's,D's,E's,F's,G's and on and on memes before questions A and B had been answered we could teach some how discussion should flow between honest people.

Just my humble suggestion.

*TAC additions????

back to subject:

Note how quickly Hitchens is discredited and called names, guess these paragraphs are really scary to their world view:

Wowie Zahawie by Christopher Hitchens

However, the waters have since become muddied, to say the least. For a start, someone produced a fake document, dated July 6, 2000, which purports to show Zahawie's signature and diplomatic seal on an actual agreement for an Iraqi uranium transaction with Niger. Almost everything was wrong with this crude forgery—it had important dates scrambled, and it misstated the offices of Niger politicians. In consequence, IAEA Chairman Mohammed ElBaradei later reported to the U.N. Security Council that the papers alleging an Iraq-Niger uranium connection had been demonstrated to be fraudulent.

But this doesn't alter the plain set of established facts in my first three paragraphs above. The European intelligence services, and the Bush administration, only ever asserted that the Iraqi regime had apparently tried to open (or rather, reopen) a yellowcake trade "in Africa." It has never been claimed that an agreement was actually reached. What motive could there be for a forgery that could be instantly detected upon cursory examination?

There seem to be only three possibilities here. Either

a) American intelligence concocted the note;

b) someone in Italy did so in the hope of gain; or

c) it was the product of disinformation, intended to protect Niger and discredit any attention paid to the actual, real-time Zahawie visit.

The CIA is certainly incompetent enough to have fouled up this badly. (I like Edward Luttwak's formulation in the March 22 Times Literary Supplement, where he writes that "there have been only two kinds of CIA secret operations: the ones that are widely known to have failed—usually because of almost unbelievably crude errors—and the ones that are not yet widely known to have failed.") Still, it almost passes belief that any American agency would fake a document that purportedly proved far more than the administration had asked and then get every important name and date wrapped round the axle. Forgery for gain is easy to understand, especially when it is borne in mind that nobody wastes time counterfeiting a bankrupt currency. Forgery for disinformation, if that is what it was, appears at least to have worked. Almost everybody in the world now affects to believe that Saddam Hussein was framed on the Niger rap.

According to the London Sunday Times of April 9, the truth appears to be some combination of b) and c). A NATO investigation has identified two named employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who, having sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, then added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real stuff went by one route to Washington, and the fakery, via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. The upshot was—follow me closely here—that a phony paper alleging a deal was used to shoot down a genuine document suggesting a connection.


Don't you think that with President Bush's legacy on the line, that very soon the gloves must come completely off.

IMHO, the RNC/Rove are minutely tracking all the Senate and Congressional districts for the upcoming midterms. Information necessary to win will be released, but again IMHO, a lot of the biggies will be kept for the race in 2008.

Many of the Iraqi documents are being held so as to not embarass our "allies". {Probably being used to encourage co-operation now} Russia has crossed some lines so we learned about their giving Saddam our Order of Battle.

I bet we see alot on the FRENCH and their criminal dealings with Iraq soon, before their new elections next year. Will the Left celebrate de Villepin's political demise considering his set up of Colin Powell at the UN?
CP, Armitage and Wilkerson are now their "sorta heroes" NOW. NOW being the operative word.

I fall back on GW, the poker player. Think of "Hustler" and the set up for the mark which is to let them win the first few games. When their confidence is high and they are willing to bet their entire wad....WACK!

Do you really think that Gonzales will resist swinging that mallet when GW gives him the go ahead?

Sue

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2006/04/who_was_woodwar.html#comment-16061788>Texas

In what universe does a trade delegation and a piece by such an unbiased observer as Christoper Hitchens make something “almost certainly true”?

The alternate universe to the universe where Joe Wilson is a truth teller and Jason Leopold and Murray Waas are keepers of the truth?

Jeff

Sue - Did you see my answer as to where I was getting the claim that Libby understood he was supposed to say that the material from p. 24 of the NIE about Iraq vigorously trying to procure uranium from Africa was a key judgment of the NIE, which was not true?

Jeff

Sue - Did you see my answer as to where I was getting the claim that Libby understood he was supposed to say that the material from p. 24 of the NIE about Iraq vigorously trying to procure uranium from Africa was a key judgment of the NIE, which was not true?

clarice

Keep nibbling at the ankles of the case, Jeff. I prefer to go up to the nuts of it. And at my level Fitz is at best a fool.

JM Hanes

"In what universe does a trade delegation and a piece by such an unbiased observer as Christoper Hitchens make something “almost certainly true”? Hitchens argument has the same force as the legendary meeting in Prague with Atta."

I'd say it's the universe in which the Prague meeting is a matter of controversy, while the trade delegation is not. That's Hitchen's central point, of course. How does his putative bias change the fact of an excursion that no one disputes?

Sue

Yes Jeff, I see where you got that Cheney told Libby to lie. Please discuss with Texas how that works. However, this was more interesting to me...Wilson said he never wrote a report.

Defendant discussed with Miller the
contents of a then classified CIA report which defendant characterized to Miller as having been written by Wilson.

I sure wish we could see the referral letter that Fitz is hiding. Could explain why UGO isn't facing charges but Libby was/is. It wasn't Val he revealed but other classified documents?

Sue

Defendant advised Miller that Wilson had reported that he had learned that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation visited Niger and sought to expand commercial relations, which was understood to be a reference to a desire to obtain uranium.

Libby didn't lie here...

maryrose

Larwyn:
I think if Gonzales wants a Supreme Court appointment in the distant future he will prosecute this NSA thing for all it is worth. Also Goss was really angry at the hearings and I think the Rocky and Bullwinkle{Risen et al} show is about to be shut down.

Jeff

Sue -
1. I find it astonishing that you find that more interesting. On the one hand, one of the four or five most powerful men in America lies to a reporter for the New York Times about a significant point regarding the document that underlay the public justification for the war with Iraq. On the other hand, there's question as to whether Wilson wrote a report or not. In any case, for what it's worth, either Libby was lying about that too or he was mistaken. Wilson did not write a report, there was a write-up of his oral report to the CIA.

2. Libby was lying again, I suspect, though we won't know for sure until we see the CIA report based on Wilson's trip itself. Saying it was understood to be a reference to a desire to obtain uranium was, I suspect, a lot stronger than the claim made by the report. Libby was also almost certainly giving a very selective characterization of the reuslts of Wilson's trip, insofar as he makes it sound like that claim was the sum and substance of the report or the central claim.

i don't get the reference to TT. But I'll see.

Jeff

Sue - I still don't get it. Libby testified that he understood he was to say something to Miller that was not true. The uranium story was not among the Key Judgments of the NIE. Libby understood he was to tell Miller that it was. Seems like a pretty clear cut lie to me.

Sue

Are you not also curious why he lied about Wilson's written report? Why just one lie? Why not all of them?

Lew Clark

Since Niger's two main exports are uranium and cowpeas, and considering how Saddam and his boys could really put down a lot of cowpeas in one meal, the assumption that that trade delegation was looking for uranium is a really shaky speculation!
Just like all those Al Queda big shots that were catching rays at the Euphrates River resorts being accused of collaborating with Saddam.

Sue

Jeff,

significant point regarding the document that underlay the public justification for the war

The NIE? Nothing has changed on the justification of our going to war. The only thing changed is Wilson claims they justified going to war using forged documents and you bought it. You buy everything out of Wilson's mouth.

JM Hanes

Jeff

"I'm surprised TM lets you hang around here."

Coming from you? Priceless!

Sue

Jeff,

Alternate universe should help you.

Sue

On the other hand, there's question as to whether Wilson wrote a report or not.

Wilson did not write a report, there was a write-up of his oral report to the CIA.

?????? In the same paragraph? Come on Jeff. You are trying way too hard to make something out of nothing.

Sue

Jeff,

Do you think Cheney had Libby lie to Miller about a document that was about to be declassified anyway? Or did they determine they needed to declassify it later because Miller didn't write a report on it? I'm not sure I'm following the logic.

Jeff

The point of Tenet's statement is that "uranium from Africa" was a sideshow, not the main event.

No, or not only. The point is also that on numerous occasions the CIA expressed doubts about the claim, or implied it by omitting it, and so it had no business being in the SOTU. Saying merely that it was a sideshow implies that the CIA had no doubts about the claim, only that it wasn't important. But that's not what Tenet says. For instance,

Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.

In September and October 2002 before Senate Committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting.

And then there is Tenet's pointing out, in contradiction to what Libby understood he was to tell Miller, that the uranium claim was not included in the NIE's Key Judgments:

In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90 page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the Intelligence Community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE’s Key Judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.

Going on to note the claim's appearance in three paragraphs in the NIE - in the interests of completeness, Tenet says - Tenet then goes on to note all the ways in which the claim was qualified, toned down, and even cast in doubt by the INR.

This is why an adminitration official noted, "We're screwed" when he read Tenet's statement.

Gary Maxwell

Come on Jeff. You are trying way too hard to make something out of nothing.

Sue now honestly you just NOW noticed?

Florence Schmieg

The press is the biggest danger this country faces!! They alone have the power to lose wars, destroy reputations, bring down governments, and hound people to suicide. No checks, no accountability, unbridled power. And they are not elected by anybody from either side!!! Physicians, who make life and death decisions are reviewed and police themselves. Not so the press who in their own way hold the power of life and death for the entire country.

TexasToast

JMH

So the fact that we find an Iraqi diplomat in Niger and several other west African countries makes the forgeries a brilliant "disinfirmation campaign" and proves "almost certainly" that Iraq was yellowcake shopping?

Boy those Iraqi intelligence guys must have been brilliant! Why don't we hire some of them to work for our CIA? We've probably got most of them in a prison somewhere. I wonder if Bagdad Bob is available?

Lew Clark

Jeff,

Libby also lied about St. Louis beating Boston in four games. Don't forget about that one!

Jeff

So Sue, you don't think Libby was told to lie? You think he was told something that Cheney was mistaken about? That Libby misunderstood? What? You assert I'm making something out of nothing. But I just don't get why you think Libby lying to Miller about the NIE is nothing.

Do you think Cheney had Libby lie to Miller about a document that was about to be declassified anyway? Or did they determine they needed to declassify it later because Miller didn't write a report on it?

We don't know enough about the whole episode to answer these questions, though I seriously doubt it was the latter. My guess is that some combination of BLC wanted Miller to publish the information that the uranium claim was a Key Judgment as soon as possible. There was apparently considerable wrangling over the official declassification, so I take it there was no way to be sure of when the document would be officially declassified and released. Indeed, it appears that at least one and possible both of the other documents there was wrangling over declassifying in July 2003 - the report from Wilson's trip, and the January 24 2003 document - were never declassified and released to reporters. Moreover, if you look at the reporting to this day, the released NIE is variously characterized as being different parts of the NIE or being the Key Judgments of the NIE. In other words, the July 18 release of the NIE may have been intended to give the same impression Libby was to give Miller - that the uranium claim was a Key Judgment.

Jeff

Lew Clark - So you just think that particular lie of LIbby's was trivial?

JM Hanes

Jeff

"In September and October 2002 before Senate Committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting."

So much for the idea that nobody told Congress about the caveats. That's what I love about the way you argue these things. In the course of trying to defend one position, you totally compromise another -- over and over again.

Jeff

JMHanes - What on earth are you talking about? The Senate had access to the NIE, with its buried qualifications, doubts and so on, as well. We know that. Part of the issue is that some of this stuff was classified and all, which means, you know, you can't talk about it publicly. And what I have always been interested in is the public justification for the war and the role that the uranium claim played in that justification. Beyond that, far be it from me to defend Congress in the mess that was the decision to go to war. It was one of the most massive failures of congressional responsibility that I know of. Unless I've forgotten "the way I argue these things" and where I included the idea that nobody told Congress about the caveats that they were told about.

Rick Ballard

"And what I have always been interested in is the public justification for the war and the role that the uranium claim played in that justification."

'Bout the same weight as the Admin and Congress placed on it - somewhere between zip and nada. You're insisting on America being the sole stage for the drama and leaving out all the noise that Saddam's purchased pimps at the UN were making - plus the fact that Blair needed a hand with the scabrous socialists in his own party who wanted nothing more than to follow deVillepin's example in bootlicking.

The American people didn't need to be sold anything - no more than their elected representatives, who did the right thing, even at the cost of offending the appeasement wing of the Dem party.

Sue

Jeff,

I think Libby lied about a lot of things, but I also think Fitzgerald writes and says stuff that makes it look as bad as possible. Until we see exactly what Libby said, not a paraphrase of it, I can't say for sure what Libby understood he was supposed to do. Talk about the key judgements of the NIE and discuss the report he had that he said was Wilson's written report that you can't be sure wasn't but it really wasn't????

You are stuck on Libby lying to a reporter? You think he lies everytime he opens his mouth. Until he says something that could damage Cheney or Bush and lo and behold, ain't a better truth teller than Libby. Is that really how this works? He lies when you don't like what he says and tells the truth when he does? I don't have that ability you seem to possess. I even made reference to being willing to sacrifice my rooster in order to obtain the ability, but on 2nd thought, thought better of it. I like my rooster.

Patton

Jeff is just one of those people that preferred we kill 3 Million Iraqis and starve another 4 million into malnutrition rather then overthrow a terrorist dictator repsonsible for killing hundreds of Americans.

Jeff appears more and more as an apologist for the real killers of the Clinton adminstration such as Albright who said it was NECESSARY to kill a half million Iraqi children by 1995.

That policy WAS THE MOST DISASTER IN OUR HISTORY AND KILLED MILLIONS SO THE UN COULD GET RICH AND POLITICIANS COULD PAD THEIR POOCKETS.

Sue

Texas,

Why not Baghdad Bob? We already have Joe Wilson. Another clown in our arsenal would provide for more entertainment.

Jeff

You think he lies everytime he opens his mouth.

False. In fact, I think the same with Libby as I think with Wilson, and with Bush, and with anyone else - lying on particular occasions does not mean everything you say is a lie. And I try to note when the lie is one alleged as part of the criminal charges against Libby. This is something that he himself testified to. And of course there's nothing illegal about lying to a reporter.

He lies when you don't like what he says and tells the truth when he does? I don't have that ability you seem to possess.

Don't flatter yourself.

Patton

There just mad a Bush for exposing their rank hypocrisy and murderous policies along with the craven and duplicitous UN.

What is even sadder is they based their torturous policy that Killed millions on what they now call A LIE - that Saddam had WMD. That was the sole basis for the left and Bill Clinton killing a couple million Iraqis.

Clinton had no plan for freedom, no plan for liberation, just more and more dead Iraqis and more and more hatred for the US.

Read Bin Ladens FATWA regarding why he planned to attack us, it was all based on Clintons killing of the Iraqi people.

Jeff

Patton has veered into insane accusations. Maybe I've touched a nerve.

Sue

It is just a coincidence that the only truths you believe from Libby are the ones that have the potential to make Cheney and/or Bush look bad?

Patton

Clinton and the UN turned Iraq into a giant concentration camp with Saddam and his thugs as the Commandant and guards. As long as the UN got their bribes and Clinton got to play Commander in Chief whenever a biimbo erruption occurred, they were perfectly happy to let the other 25 MIllion Iraqis whither on the vine, be tortured and starved and denied medicine all in the name of WMD and oil for food bribery.

Patton

Please Jeff, by all means, tell me where I am wrong? Didn't you read Albrights quotes? Have you read Clinton speeches about that boogeyman Saddam Hussein and his big bad WMD that didn't exist?

Do you remeber Clinton sending his Secretary of Defense out with a 5 pound bag of sugar telling us Saddam was going to kill us all?

Did you miss the 1990s??

Sue

Jeff,

No, Patton hasn't launched into insane ramblings. They are accusations made by the left when Clinton was continuing the sanctions. Dead Iraqi babies by the millions. And the FATWA issued by bin Laden in 1998 said exactly that. War was declared on the US in part for the deaths of Iraqis. Of course, there were other reasons outlined. Bin Laden never limits himself to one issue.

Patton

Did you even know Jeff that the TWO heads of the opil for food program RESIGNED so as no longer to be complicit in the killing of thousands of Iraqis?

JM Hanes

TT

"So the fact that we find an Iraqi diplomat in Niger and several other west African countries makes the forgeries a brilliant "disinfirmation campaign" and proves "almost certainly" that Iraq was yellowcake shopping?"

Hello?

The fact that we find a high level Iraqi trade delegation in a country with nothing to offer but uranium and cowpeas makes the idea that they were scoping out the unranium market a logical certainty regardless of the forgeries.

That conclusion remains almost inescapable whether or not you find Hitchens persuasive as to what the forgeries might have been intended to accomplish. Hitchens makes that point so explicitly, and repeatedly, that I'm astonished to find it seems to have escaped you entirely. And that's the kindest way I can think to put it.

Cecil Turner

And yet Libby testified that he understood he was to say that that very passage from p. 24 was a key judgment.

Again, prove it. You don't have Libby's testimony, only this statement from Fitz, which is obviously a paraphrase:

Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium.
Did Libby say "the Key Judgments paper held that Iraq was 'vigorously trying to procure' uranium," and Fitz got it very slightly wrong? Did Libby get it slightly wrong? Your "lie" formulation, which assumes it was incorrect and intentional is obviously unprovable (and doubtful as well). Why are you pretending to know?

. . . but they chose to “defend themselves”, in AM’s parlance, by releasing exculpatory portions to selected reporters on background . . .

They considered the entire NIE exculpatory (with good reason) and at worst, Tenet discussed the caveats three days later, and they released the whole thing ten days later. You're assuming Libby didn't cover exactly the same document on July 8, and you're guessing.

Thus, I would say that it is advocacy/spin to say that rebutting evidence was released as a part of and incident to the Libby leak campaign. “Going to” is not the same thing.

If you're seriously suggesting the Libby "leak campaign" was unrelated to Tenet's statement and the NIE release, then we have a significant difference of opinion. I think you're wrong, but wouldn't suggest that's a dishonest view.

Pure spin. These two pieces of evidence make it almost certainly true?

The 2000 British report predates the forgeries. It is absolutely false to claim they came first, as many persist in pretending. And unless you can proffer an innocent explanation for the trade delegation (and I don't think you can), the main point of Hitchens' piece, it is almost certainly true that Iraqi officials were seeking uranium (<-- obviously an opinion, but I maintain a defensible one).

Jeff

Sue - Patton's insane accusations are against me. I'm signing off for a while until he's stopped his table pounding, capitalized insanity. It's interesting, though, do you think he is sharing what you call the left's accusations, or not? Also, as you yourself point out, Patton completely mischaracterizes bin Laden's rationalization for attack in limiting himself to Iraq.

Rick Ballard

"Clinton had no plan for freedom, no plan for liberation,"

Patton, that's just not true. He had a plan. He even allowed it through Congress back in '98 using the same rationale that would be used a few years later. He just didn't have the political will or sufficient public backing for his plan. The same sniveling appeasers were making the same noises back then. The same handwringing lefties were doing the same buttkissing of tyrants then as they are now.

Were it not for Saddam's apologists and ennablers, Clinton might have been able to give him the boot. It would have been a slam dunk if Saddam had been a Christian theoretically persecuting Muslims - then Clinton would have found the will to bomb Baghdad as he did Serbia.

Jeff

Cecil - Look, you can hold out an inhuman standard of proof whenever it suits you. Fine. I am making a probabilistic judgment, not a mathematical demonstration. You simply choose when you want to say, Hey, you can't prove the white billiard ball actually caused the black one to move. And you can always split a unit of time or a grain of sand in half again. Or a hair.

larwyn

Maryrose
Recently on one of the CSPAN Booknotes broadcasts I watch, it was noted that fiction just is not selling now. (Actually mislabled fiction by the Left is selling only marketed as NON FICTION)

We have foreshadowing, turncoats, and plots within plots within plots that even the unsenile LeCarre would have trouble matching. May Goss/Gonzales do a real Smiley on our enemies.

"24" - Kieffer getting 40 million for 3 more days.Just wondering if the Lefties have tried to get one in, portraying the President (who looks/acts like Kerry) as now setting up some terrorist actions to get the USA into what?

Boston Legal is getting unwatchable with their inane LEFTY talking points.
Do the "24" producers really think that the Dems are watching? They don't believe in terrorists or in Jack's means. Sutherland will get his 40million even w/o an audience. But as money is no object with Hollywood to get their side back into power (see boxoffice for "Day After Tomorrow" the new "V"and all those Oscar nominees) have they sucked us in to then use as vehicle for Jack's denoument?

And in this vein:
Has Rick Moran explained himself re Leopold? I read the entire AT piece last evening -
turning on a dime is weird. Also read the links provided on Leopold's history. Double that weird. Are Rick and Terry LTAO at us?

On a much happier note:

JMH
Many thanks for the link to Vanderleun's THE TRAGEDY OF OMLET, PRINCE OF MASS. 9/4/04 It was very welcome read to end my day. I did post it into the comments yesterday's "The Hamlet Men" so that all his new fans will find. Gave you full credit.

Trying to encourage Gerard to star Wilson,Fitz and the gang into another Shakespearean romp.

As things are going it will be awhile before Fiction-FICTION is again the priority of publishers.

And to be prepared for the next onslaught, already begining on the LSM read:

Mark Steyn in the City Journal is on Nuclear Iran with Facing Down Iran "Our lives depend on it".

Jack Kelley linked to Steyn and many other must reads today at his Irish Penants.But for his fans and for those doubters of the Lefty leanings of the "MSM" read:
The reason is I've been fired as the national security writer. I've been forbidden to write news stories about national defense.

Jack served as both a Marine AND in the Army as a Green Beret is now covering "FITNESS" - not Armed Services' fitness - but Health Food FITNESS. I LOL at his post looking for people who take massive doses of vitamins in the Pgh area. Sure it was code to us his followers on how ridiculous the situation is. Jack is neither stupid or lazy - all he had to do was hang around Whole Foods for an hour.

Sue

Jeff,

I didn't notice the accusations against you. Maybe I missed them or maybe they were earlier and I scrolled on by (I do that sometimes when someone seems out of control, and yeah, sometimes Patton seems a little out of control) but the 2 points he made, dead babies and OBL, were not insane ramblings, as you stated.

Neither you, nor Pattion, should try to claim innocence in the war you seem to be conducting with each other.

Sue

Just out of curiosity, why are we supposed to believe Iran has or is about to have nuclear weapons?

boris

Libby testified that he understood he was to say something to Miller that was not true. The uranium story was not among the Key Judgments of the NIE.

Where is it written that Libby claimed that vigorous pursuit was a Key Judgement? The NIE contained both.

If the relevant portions of the NIE that Libby was authorized to disclose included both, is this conflation coming from Jeff or Libby? Why does it even matter ??? Looks like ... uh ... well ...


Gary Maxwell

Patton ol buddy I just reread your posts and I dont see anything to cause the sudden ranting and raving directed at you by you know who. But if you can get em to leave that easily, see what you can do the next time ol JayDee/Katrina/AB pokes his head up out of his sewer hole.

Barney Frank

Jeff,

It might be more reasonable for you to be in high dudgeon about anything Patton might have said if you hadn't spent the morning telling those whom you disagree with that they are racists, delusional and off their rocker. N'est-ce pas?

Patton

Of course Tenent was in on the whole scheme with Clinton, but then Bush came into office and Tenent was stuck. He couldn't admit they had been fabricating the whole WMD issue so he just had to hope Bush was corrupt and uncaring as Clinton and wouldn't take the Natiional Security seriously.

So Bush actually believed Tenents assessments that kept the whole corrupt UN/Clinton adminstration corrupt policy afloat.

ITS NOT ME WHO IS MAKING THESE CLAIMS, IT IS ALL THOSE ON THE LEFT WHO CLAIM BUSH LIED...BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONLY PLAUSIBLE SCENARIO IF WE ACTUALLY BELIEVE THEIR CLAIMS.

Patton

So what exactly do you refute Jeff?

That you supported Clinton?

That Clinton claimed Saddam had WMD?

That Albright said is was NECESSARY for a half million Iraqi children to die by 1995?

That Clinton set up the Oil for food bribery scheme?

That Clinton attacked Iraq every time a Bimbo eruption was reported?

That a few million Iraqis died due to the sanctions?

Just what is it?

Lew Clark

Totally OT

"By ZINIE CHEN SAMPSON, Associated Press Writer
Tue Apr 11, 12:43 AM ET


RICHMOND, Va. - President Bush and the Justice Department are among the winners of the 2006 Jefferson Muzzle awards, given by a free-speech group to those it considers the most egregious First Amendment violators in the past year.

Bush led the list, compiled by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, for authorizing the National Security Agency to tap the phones of U.S. citizens who make calls overseas. The wiretaps were conducted without authorization from a federal court. The White House defended the warrantless wiretapping program as necessary to fight terrorism."

In a related story Mrs. Zimmerman's third grade class at Thomas Jefferson Elementary School awarded the previously unheard of "Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression" their first annual " They're So Silly, Award".

Patton

60 MINUTES:
Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: I think this is a very hard choice, but the price--we think the price is worth it.

--60 Minutes (5/12/96)

A half million dead children and the leftists say...it was worth it? Yet the liberation and the overthrow of the dictator isn't worth one death to them?

clarice

HEH!

Seeing to whom Nobel and Pulitzer prizes are awarded and to whom they are not, it seems to be any man or woman of honor would refuse them.

Patton

The liberals in the Clinton adminstration did not hesitate to heighten and distort public fear of terrorism in 1997, to create a political case for attacking Iraq.” In “The Clinton Administration’s Public Case Against Saddam Hussein.” Selected excerpts follow:


The New York Times reported that at the November 14 [1997] meeting the “White House decided to prepare the country for war.” According to the Times, “[t]he decision was made to begin a public campaign through interviews on the Sunday morning television news programs to inform the American people of the dangers of biological warfare.” During this time, the Washington Post reported that President Clinton specifically directed Cohen “to raise the profile of the biological and chemical threat.”


On November 16, Cohen made a widely reported appearance on ABC’s This Week in which he placed a five-pound bag of sugar on the table and stated that that amount of anthrax “would destroy at least half the population” of Washington, D.C.”


In an article (“America the Vulnerable; A disaster is just waiting to happen if Iraq unleashes its poison and germs,” November 24, 1997), Time wrote that “officials in Washington are deeply worried about what some of them call ‘strategic crime.’ By that they mean the merging of the output from a government’s arsenals, like Saddam’s biological weapons, with a group of semi-independent terrorists, like radical Islamist groups, who might slip such bioweapons into the U.S. and use them.”


In Sacramento, November 15, Clinton painted a bleak future if nations did not cooperate against “organized forces of destruction,” telling the audience that only a small amount of “nuclear cake put in a bomb would do ten times as much damage as the Oklahoma City bomb did.” Effectively dealing with proliferation and not letting weapons “fall into the wrong hands” is “fundamentally what is stake in the stand off we’re having in Iraq today.”


He [President Clinton] asked Americans to not to view the current crisis (1997) as a “replay” of the Gulf War in 1991. Instead, “think about it in terms of the innocent Japanese people that died in the subway when the sarin gas was released [by the religious cult Aum Shinrikyo in 1995]; and how important it is for every responsible government in the world to do everything that can possibly be done not to let big stores of chemical or biological weapons fall into the wrong hands, not to let irresponsible people develop the capacity to put them in warheads on missiles or put them in briefcases that could be exploded in small rooms. And I say this not to frighten you.”


Cohen began his November 25, 1997 briefing on the Pentagon report by showing a picture of a Kurdish mother and her child who had been gassed by Saddam’s army. A bit later, standing besides the gruesome image, he described death on a mass scale. “One drop [of VX nerve agent] on your finger will produce death in a matter of just a few moments. Now the UN believes that Saddam may have produced as much as 200 tons of VX, and this would, of course, be theoretically enough to kill every man, woman and child on the face of the earth.” He then sketched an image of a massive chemical attack on an American city. Recalling Saddam’s use of poison gas and the sarin attack in Tokyo, Cohen warned that “we face a clear and present danger today” and reminded people that the “terrorist who bombed the World Trade Center in New York had in mind the destruction and deaths of some 250,000 people that they were determined to kill.”


Under the White Paper’s “nuclear weapons” section, it observed: “Baghdad’s interest in acquiring nuclear or developing nuclear weapons has not diminished”; “we have concerns that scientists may be pursuing theoretical nuclear research that would reduce the time required to produce a weapon should Iraq acquire sufficient fissile material”; “Iraq continues to withhold significant information about enrichment techniques, foreign procurement, weapons design, and the role of Iraq’s security and intelligence services in obtaining external assistance and coordinating postwar concealment.”


At Tennessee State on February 19, Albright told the crowd that the world has not “seen, except maybe since Hitler, somebody who is quite as evil as Saddam Hussein.” In answering a question, she sketched some of the “worse” case scenarios should Saddam “break out of the box that we kept him in....” “Another scenario is that he could kind of become the salesman for weapons of mass destruction – that he could be the place that people come and get more weapons.”


One of the lessons of history, Albright continued, is that “if you don’t stop a horrific dictator before he gets started too far – that he can do untold damage.” “If the world had been firmer with Hitler earlier,” said Albright, “then chances are that we might not have needed to send Americans to Europe during the Second World War.”


Secretary Albright held a briefing on Desert Fox and was asked how she would respond to those who say that unlike the 1991 Gulf War this campaign “looks like mostly an Anglo-American mission.” She answered: “We are now dealing with a threat, I think, that is probably harder for some to understand because it is a threat of the future, rather than a present threat, or a present act such as a border crossing, a border aggression. And here, as the president described in his statement yesterday, we are concerned about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein’s ability to have, develop, deploy weapons of mass destruction and the threat that that poses to the neighbors, to the stability of the Middle East, and therefore, ultimately to ourselves.”


NOW REMEMBER IRAQ HAD NO WMD DURING THIS PERIOD AND THE NYT WAS GOING ALONG WITH EVERYTHING THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION SAID.

NOW ALSO REMEMBER THAT PRESIDENT BUSH WAS SITTING BACK IN TEXAS AND HAD NOT EVEN ANNOUNCED A FUTURE RUN FOR PRESIDENT, WHEN THE CLINTON ADMINSTRATION WAS HYPING THE NUCLEAR THREAT FROM IRAQ!!!

boris

Cecil - Look, you can hold out an inhuman standard of proof ...

Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was “vigorously trying to procure” uranium.

This is probably the basis for Jeff's "Libby instructed to lie" assertion. It is not an inhuman standard to be skeptical that Libby was instructed to tell Miller that "One of the Key Judgements of the NIE was that Iraq was vigorously trying to procure uranium."

If Libby was authorized to disclose portions of the Key Judgements and the vigorous claim, the conflation could well be Fitz's or Libby's and not the instructions.

Relative to the WIlson's disinformation, the fact that the NIE's judgement was that Iraq was vigorously trying to procure uranium, would be key to the rebuttal. In that sense it could be said that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was vigorously trying to procure uranium. that would be a different use of the term key judgement than "One of the Key Judgements".

Just doesn't rise to the level of "Instructed to Lie".

Cecil Turner

Look, you can hold out an inhuman standard of proof whenever it suits you.

Utter nonsense, Jeff. You don't know what Libby said. There are many perfectly correct statements that could have been paraphrased as Fitz did, and he is no Libby fan. You're using his description of the testimony (which Fitz does not hightlight as false, though he's done so with other statements), to claim something Fitz doesn't. Further, Fitz may well be using shorthand to describe the source of the claim when he characterizes it as "a key judgment of the NIE." If you're going to claim Libby lied, you need something to hang it on, and you don't have it. That's not an "inhuman standard," it's a minimally fair one.

Jake - but not the one

More off topic - but way more interesting (to me, anyway) then the WAPO.

I've been thinking about Changing Your Mind about Iraq

The LA Times recently hosted Francis Fukuyama, writing about changing his mind.

Francis Fukuyama on changing his mind

I tried to extract the most important points of the article using Francis’ words, but he proved too concise - to further shrink his words would leave me subject to the “quotes out of context” claim. So, here is part of what he said, but you really need to read the whole article:

SEVEN WEEKS AGO, I published my case against the Iraq war. I wrote that although I had originally advocated military intervention in Iraq, and had even signed a letter to that effect shortly after the 9/11 attacks, I had since changed my mind.

But apparently this kind of honest acknowledgment is verboten. In the weeks since my book came out, I've been challenged, attacked and vilified from both ends of the ideological spectrum. From the right, columnist Charles Krauthammer has accused me of being an opportunistic traitor to the neoconservative cause — and a coward to boot. From the left, I've been told that I have "blood on my hands" for having initially favored toppling Saddam Hussein and that my "apology" won't be accepted.

In my view, no one should be required to apologize for having supported intervention in Iraq before the war. There were important competing moral goods on both sides of the argument, something that many on the left still refuse to recognize. … The debate over the war shouldn't have been whether it was morally right to topple Hussein (which it clearly was), but whether it was prudent to do so given the possible costs and potential consequences of intervention and whether it was legitimate for the U.S. to invade in the unilateral way that it did.

But in the years since then, it is the right that has failed to come to terms with these uncomfortable facts. The failure to find WMD and to make a quick transition to a stable democracy — as well as the prisoner abuse and the inevitable bad press that emerges from any prolonged occupation — have done enormous damage to America's credibility and standing in the world….

The logic of my prewar shift on invading Iraq has now been doubly confirmed. I believe that the neoconservative movement, with which I was associated, has become indelibly associated with a failed policy, and that unilateralism and coercive regime change cannot be the basis for an effective American foreign policy. …

What has infuriated many people is President Bush's unwillingness to admit that he made any mistakes whatsoever in the whole Iraq adventure….

… Instead of trying to defend sharply polarized positions taken more than three years ago, it would be far better if people could actually take aboard new information and think about how their earlier commitments, honestly undertaken, actually jibe with reality — even if this does on occasion require changing your mind.

Francis speaks from a unique viewpoint – or at least it once was unique. There seem to be more and more post 9/11 pro-war voices who are now rethinking the whole Iraq invasion and occupation thing. Many of them do not claim, as Francis does, that the war was a bad idea, that “democratizing Iraq and the Mideast might come to look like empire”, but rather, as Bill Buckley says. “It Didn’t Work”. Bill’s final words on the subject are “… within their own counsels, different plans have to be made. And the kernel here is the acknowledgment of defeat.” Not that Bill thinks the goal was wrong, or even the tactics, just that we couldn’t, or wouldn’t, apply appropriate measures to accomplish our goal. Measures such as we used on Hiroshima and Dresden. Or perhaps he meant instituting the draft; he really isn’t very clear on the subject.

The trouble the left has (is there a “left” anymore? I think of the left as everything different from the right) is that Francis and Bill say the cause is lost but don’t admit that it was a MILITARY invasion that failed. They don’t renounce war as a tool of regime change. Bill explicitly reserves the right to invade another country in an attempt to plant democracy (he calls it maintaining American idealism - the same idealism that invaded Iraq in the first place), while Francis is more circumspect – he says only that we should have had the full support of the UN, that “… no one should be required to apologize for having supported intervention in Iraq before the war.” Which the Bill thing is funny, if you think about it. The last two regime changes we attempted, Afghanistan and Iraq, ended up instituting Sharia as the law of the land – and Bill thinks we need to go back and talk to the Afghani’s more, so that they understand that when AMERICA brings you democracy, you better by Gawd have a special place in your heart for Christians. Even if they are apostate Muslims.

Mind you, I have no problems with apostasy.

Francis doesn’t get it, Bill doesn’t get it, none of them get it. Ok, Francis does come close – he says “unilateralism and coercive regime change cannot be the basis for an effective American foreign policy.” Does that mean he now believes that invasion and occupation are not the best method for planting democracy?

I don’t know what he believes, but that is what I believe, and believed back then.

Changing your mind when the facts don’t support your beliefs is a good thing. I think there are a lot of us who might give it a try.

Jake

Cecil Turner

Changing your mind when the facts don’t support your beliefs is a good thing. I think there are a lot of us who might give it a try.

Changing your mind about a war--in the middle of it--is stupidly immoral. Once started, whatever the merits, getting it over quickly and with the minimum amount of suffering is the paramount consideration.

boris

try harder

JohnH

Jeff will not let go of the idea that Libby was "told to lie" by Cheney. This is based on two documents--Fitz's reporting of Libby's testimony and the "key judgments" of the NIE.

These two sources do not support the conclusion that Libby was "told to lie." Fitz says, p. 23 of his filing, that Libby was told to tell Miller that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure" uranium. From the context, one could argue that this assertion was represented as a "key judgment."

But now look at the "key judgments":

"in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

and

"Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM inspectors departed--December 1998."

If Saddam was "intent" on acquiring nukes, and that "most agencies" believed that he had re-started his nukes program, and he needed uranium to do this, how much of a stretch is it to say that he was "vigorously trying to procure uranium"? Why is the footnote about Niger which Jeff keeps saying is outside the four corners of the "key judgments" page not supporting evidence for one of those very "key judgments"?

If you were Bush, Cheney or Libby, reading the key judgments agreed to by "most agencies", you were apparently a liar and a conspirator to mislead the press if you interpreted "intent on reconstituting" as having a relationship to Italian/French/British intel on Iraq's secret dealings with Niger. Oh,yes, and as President you should have just discounted it. Because even if Joe Wilson was a fake, he was nevertheless accurate.

Gary Maxwell

Hey Jake go read Hitchens article yeterday. He changed his mind, a Liberal who broke with his idealogical brethren. Give that a try and let us know of your smug satisfaction on learning he thinks there is no doubt of Iraq attempting to obtain uranium in Africa.

And as you say, changing your mind when the facts dont support your beliefs is a good thing. Try it.

Rick Ballard

Patton,

Dammit, man, that was absolutely completely 100% different. Don't you know the difference between (D) and (R)? It's as plain as the nose on your face and the fact that you continue with this is just a demonstration of how totally deranged your are.

WHAT DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND?

Joe Wilson

Mr Ballard,
"if Saddam had been a Christian theoretically persecuting Muslims - then Clinton would have found the will to bomb Baghdad as he did Serbia."
It is instructive that Clinton's Serbian campaign won him no credit ii the Muslim world

Jake - but not the one

Cecil, I'm all for finishing the war NOW. As in, we're not in the middle of it, we are at the end, it's time to get the hell out of Dodge.

Hitchens? No, I don't read Hitchens.

Ever.

Gary, Hitchens has a little trouble with facts. Besides, I really, REALLY, don't care about Niger yellowcake. It's history, done, finished, toasted so black as to be totally inedible.

And there never was any Niger yellowcake. Not that Saddam didn't want some, but he wanted lots of things.

Don't we all.

Jake

Valerie Plame

Joe, would you please stop playng on the internet. You are due on a cable show soon dear, and you need to hit makeup first. Snap, snap...we've ski trips to pay for.

boris

it's time to get the hell out of Dodge

Not gonna happen. In 2008 you can try to elect a cut 'n runner. Hopefully it won't matter by then.

Gary Maxwell

Funny even the front runner for the Dems (according the current polls) wont execute the "declare victory and run strategy" so I am wondering what you will have to gripe about soon enough? Dont get me wrong, I know there will be something I just wonder what it will be.

larwyn

Thank you Patton

I noted last evening that a new book is being released today:

I've Always Been a Yankees Fan (English)
(Hillary Clinton in Her Own Words

- ISBN: 0974670189)
Publisher: Midpoint Trade Books Inc
Format: Paperback MSRP: $ 12.95

Hindsight:
Had the Admin and their spokesman toted the videos and transcripts of the statements by Albright (I prefer Twinkle Toes), Cohen, Billy and the rest of the Clintonistas, around with them and just read from them when asked any question about Iraq - where would the Lefties be now??

Patton, your "call sign" makes obvious where you stand and fact that you are student of history.
If I have read that correctly, know you have an ally here, even tho if it were up to Jeff and his friends my "call sign" would be
"OFF MY ROCKER".

Jeff and his buddies don't like history much - those "killing fields" in Cambodia and all the graves filled by Stalin and on and on are just off their radar screens. Makes honest discussions difficult.

Barney thanks for your response and including the "off the rocker" quote in list of digressions from civil discussion.

Sandy Berger question:
Who was heading the DOJ when the original deal was made with him? Was that also Comey?

Is his deal now final?? Or does Gonzales still have ability to pull him back in? Example they find a lies in his "confession".

SteveMG

Jake:
Hitchens? No, I don't read Hitchens.

Ever.

Even when he was criticizing Reagan?

And boy, was he ever critical of old Dutch.

SMG

Sue

even if Joe Wilson was a fake, he was nevertheless accurate

I like that line. If I had somewhere to use it, I would steal it.

PeterUK

Jake,
"it's time to get the hell out of Dodge."

If you had got out of Dodge when it was Dodge,it would still be Dodge.

Rick Ballard

Mr Wilson,

Clinton always operated under the delusion that Muslims were 'just like us, only with different customs', that's his wife's thinking. The tranzi notion kind of breaks up a bit when the Muslims apply their time honored and traditional methods of dealing with the 'other' in a manner that belies historicism.

Montesquieu understood them on an elemental level - he understood the theology which separates them from all others as well as anyone. It's a pity that more don't read him and fewer read Hegel and his bastard descendants.

clarice

Comey was Deputey AG when Berger was nabbed and he talked a good game at the time. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/7/21/112117.shtml

Larry

AB | April 11, 2006 at 08:32 AM
"There's no connection."

I debunk thee. I debunk thee. I debunk thee. That oughta settle that.

clarice

***Deputy***********

PeterUK

and Jake,"And there never was any Niger yellowcake" It is the main export and source of income for an impoverished country,Niger,whose only other substantial exports were chick peas and goats.Since we have not heard word of the Goats of Mass Destruction nor anything from the International Chick Pea Agrncy,what were the Iraqi officials visiting for?

Joe Wilson

Mr Ballard,
Word has it that Bill thought Hill would be cute in a burqa,same goes for Val,time she went covert again,nag,nag ,nag!

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame