Will President Bush Fire Himself?

[nuke]

Are you doubting God? Unbeliever, Heretic. You will be stoned.....

Oh wait, we're not the Taliban, we were the ones fighting the Taliban. OK, we'll just tap your phones without a warrant then.

The Taliban is in Iraq Right?

 

[punkin]

The Taliban is in Iraq Right?

They are all over. Iraq, Iran. I hear tell ere are some in North Korea too. I know for a fact there are none in Pakistan or Afganistan though because we have won that war and don't have to worry about Bin Laden anymore.

 

[bsnyder]

High horse? You are the one who threw out the rude straw man comment when somebody tried to give you your answer. So your opinion is the only solid one? Please.

How could he give me my answer? My question was directed at you, and related to your thinking. Or is wvrevy an alias board name of yours?

The tone of a comment is in the eye of the beholder. It's not solid, or otherwise. My comment to wvrevy was no ruder than his reply to my question to you.

A question for you, wvrevy. Is it your contention that declassifying the NIE on Iraq's pre-war capabilities three months after the fall of Baghdad was somehow harmful to our national security?

 

[eclectics]

Maybe it's just me but declassifying something in secret and then allowing it to become public knowledge is called a leak. And not only that, but it was "given" only to Judy Miller, not the media pool. But the President had no agenda? Spare me please! And btw, the nasty liberal media you claim is not fair have made it a point to repeatedly say Plames name leak is not linked to Bush (at least for now).

 

[crcormier]

I think he should fire himself for being completely fiscally irresponsible.

 

[salmoneous]

A question for you, wvrevy. Is it your contention that declassifying the NIE on Iraq's pre-war capabilities three months after the fall of Baghdad was somehow harmful to our national security?

I don't know - ask the President. The NIE's are still classified (and no, I don't understand how considering the president declassificed them in order to leak them) and the White House refused to release them.

If the White House claims these documents need be classified, you aren't disagreeing with them, are you?

 

[bsnyder]

I don't know - ask the President. The NIE's are still classified (and no, I don't understand how considering the president declassificed them in order to leak them) and the White House refused to release them.

If the White House claims these documents need be classified, you aren't disagreeing with them, are you?

You are completely misinformed. Where did you get this impression?

The NIE in question was released to the White House press corp and the public on July 18th, 2003. This was amid a huge public outcry for more information about pre-war intelligence, due to Joe Wilson's misleading and distorted NYT's op-ed claiming Bush lied about said pre-war intelligence.

 

[wvrevy]

"Misleading and distorted" kinda like this:

Bush, May 29, 2003: We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories. You remember when Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said, Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons. They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two. And we'll find more weapons as time goes on. But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.

Is that the kind of "misleading" you're referring to?

This administration has made a firm policy of re-classifying any and all information that can even be loosely related to the "war on terra". Yet, you're willing to forgive them for releasing this particular document for purely political purposes?

 

[bsnyder]

Maybe it's just me but declassifying something in secret and then allowing it to become public knowledge is called a leak. And not only that, but it was "given" only to Judy Miller, not the media pool. But the President had no agenda? Spare me please! And btw, the nasty liberal media you claim is not fair have made it a point to repeatedly say Plames name leak is not linked to Bush (at least for now).

Again, it was given to the media pool ten days later. Is that what you are quibbling over?

I said it wasn't fair that the media hasn't reported what Fitzgerald said, which is that Bush didn't know about the leak. That would seem to put the speculation to rest, regarding Bush's involvment, once and for all. And there wouldn't be any more "at least for now" comments.

 

[bsnyder]

"Misleading and distorted" kinda like this:



Is that the kind of "misleading" you're referring to?

This administration has made a firm policy of re[/i]-classifying any and all information that can even be loosely related to the "war on terra". Yet, you're willing to forgive them for releasing this particular document for purely political purposes?

Do you have a link for that quote? Or a link to the "firm policy" you claim.

My willingness to forgive them is irrelevant. They didn't do anything wrong. Joe Wilson was calling the President a liar in the New York Times. The Administration had facts to prove him wrong, and prove that in fact, Wilson himself was the liar. Why wouldn't they defend themselves? And you think Wilson's motives weren't political?



I asked you a simple and direct question a few posts ago.

A question for you, wvrevy. Is it your contention that declassifying the NIE on Iraq's pre-war capabilities three months after the fall of Baghdad was somehow harmful to our national security?

You going to answer it?

 

[wvrevy]

Do you have a link for that quote? Or a link to the "firm policy" you claim.

Google's list of pages carrying that exact quote: here

New York Times story on Bush administration's reclassifying of documents: US Reclassifying Documents in Secret Review

My willingness to forgive them is irrelevant. They didn't do anything wrong. Joe Wilson was calling the President a liar in the New York Times. The Administration had facts to prove him wrong, and prove that in fact, Wilson himself was the liar. Why wouldn't they defend themselves? And you think Wilson's motives weren't political?

Who cares what Wilson's motives were? The fact is that he was not wrong, and that there remains zero evidence to support the president's assertion that Iraq was trying to reconstitute it's nuclear program. Besides, Wilson didn't release previously classified documents, nor did he out his own wife and the dummy corporation she worked for. Your boy Shrub did that (or, at least, Libby and the other scum that work for him did).

You going to answer it?

Here's an answer: not nearly so much as lying to get us into a war on muslim soil. That direct enough for you, Mr. Prosecutor?

 

[bsnyder]

Google's list of pages carrying that exact quote: here

New York Times story on Bush administration's reclassifying of documents: US Reclassifying Documents in Secret Review


Who cares what Wilson's motives were? The fact is that he was not wrong, and that there remains zero evidence to support the president's assertion that Iraq was trying to reconstitute it's nuclear program. Besides, Wilson didn't release previously classified documents, nor did he out his own wife and the dummy corporation she worked for. Your boy Shrub did that (or, at least, Libby and the other scum that work for him did).


Here's an answer: not nearly so much as lying to get us into a war on muslim soil. That direct enough for you, Mr. Prosecutor?

No, not direct enough, Mr. Smart Alec. Your comments have implied it was harmful, but you haven't actually said that, so I'm trying to clarify your position. Either you believe it was harmful or it wasn't. Yes or no?

The fact is that Wilson lied, purely for political gain. The NEI and subsequent facts proved it. I realize you are spinning the facts as hard as you can, but it doesn't change what happened.

 

[salmoneous]

Joe Wilson was calling the President a liar in the New York Times. The Administration had facts to prove him wrong, and prove that in fact, Wilson himself was the liar. Why

Could you just refresh my memory here.

1) Where in his NY Times piece did Joe Wilson call the President a liar?

2) What was in the leaked NIE that proved Wilson was a liar?

I think you may be mixed up your stories a bit here.

 

[bsnyder]

Could you just refresh my memory here.

1) Where in his NY Times piece did Joe Wilson call the President a liar?

2) What was in the leaked NIE that proved Wilson was a liar?

I think you may be mixed up your stories a bit here.

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?
Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

Come on now - surely you haven't forgotten that this is how the whole Bush Lied meme got it's start.


I think it's you who's confused, but that's not suprising given the spin, disguised as factual reporting, on the part of the MSM, so here's a (very) short primer:

Wilson conflated his op-ed piece about his trip to Niger with two completely different questions, in order to push the "Bush lied" theme.

1. Did Iraq attempt to purchase Uranium?

2. How likely was it that the transaction took place?

The answer to Number 1, according to Wilson's own report and the NEI, was yes. And this is what President Bush asserted in his State of the Union address.

The answer to Number 2 is - not likely, again based on Wilson's report and the NEI.

Bush never claimed that Iraq actually aquired uranium, but that they attempted to arrange a sale.

There's more, to Wilson's lies, but that's the basics, that got the whole thing started.

You can read Wilson's op-ed here:


http://www.globalexchange.org/countries/mideast/iraq/768.html

 

[salmoneous]

Actually, I have read Wilson' piece, which is why I asked the question. Where in that piece does he - as you said - call the President a liar?

And the second question was what was in that leaked NIE that - again as you said - proved Joe Wilson was a liar. What is the lie, what is in the NIE that proves it is a lie?

 

[bsnyder]

Actually, I have read Wilson' piece, which is why I asked the question. Where in that piece does he - as you said - call the President a liar?

And the second question was what was in that leaked NIE that - again as you said - proved Joe Wilson was a liar. What is the lie, what is in the NIE that proves it is a lie?

Sorry - have to run to an appointment and didn't want you to think I'm ignoring the questions. I'll be back.

 

[Teejay32]

That was the whole point of Wilson's NYT article - telling the public that part of the State of the Union speech was a lie. The NIE would disprove that seeking uranium in Africa was the Administration's sole reason to pick on Saddam, and/or show that the CIA made their judgements without making the claim of uranium in Africa. I think that's how the NIE matters there.

 

[eclectics]

And there wouldn't be any more "at least for now" comments.

Sadly, with the unprecedented secrecy in which this administration conducts it's business, and from day one, not just post 9/11, that comment will always be relevant. There are a lot of worms under Bush/Cheney Rock and I for one am glad we have some of the media willing to try to dig some of the truth up. This President makes it mighty hard to do so. You may call it biased but I call it doing their job.

 

[wvrevy]

No, not direct enough, Mr. Smart Alec. Your comments have implied it was harmful, but you haven't actually said that, so I'm trying to clarify your position. Either you believe it was harmful or it wasn't. Yes or no?

The fact is that Wilson lied, purely for political gain. The NEI and subsequent facts proved it. I realize you are spinning the facts as hard as you can, but it doesn't change what happened.

1 - The harm done was in outing a CIA agent and the cover agency she worked for. An agent and agency, by the way, that specialized in weapons of mass destruction. But them I don't know why we'd care about those or anything.

2 - Exactly what did Wilson lie about? I'm not "spinning" anything at all. Wilson said that the claim about Iraq trying to buy uranium "yellow cake" was blown out of porportion. He was right. Also, he's not a politician. Yes, he spoke out against the administration's lies in their rush to war (well...their rush to have other people die for their war...we all know they're too cowardly to fight it themselves ). This makes it a "political" motivation? He saw them lying to drum up support for a war that he did not feel was justified, and he told the truth about what he knew. Exactly how is that a bad thing?

 

[salmoneous]

That was the whole point of Wilson's NYT article - telling the public that part of the State of the Union speech was a lie. The NIE would disprove that seeking uranium in Africa was the Administration's sole reason to pick on Saddam, and/or show that the CIA made their judgements without making the claim of uranium in Africa. I think that's how the NIE matters there.

It's a nice theory - but I'm not sure it is supported by the facts.

Where in Wilson's NYT article does he tell the public that part of the SOTU was a lie?

What is in the NIE that disproves that seeking uranium in Africa was the Administration's sole reason to pick on Saddam?

Who has ever claimed that seeking uranium in Africa was the Administration's sole reason to pick on Sassam?

Do either of those last points back up bsnyder's statement that the NIE proves that Wilson was a liar? If so, what was the lie and what was in the NIE that proves it to be a lie?