I love Kinsley's stuff...
This one is right on!!!!!!!!!!!!!
snood wrote:I love Kinsley's stuff...
There are lots of reports in the media right now that Britain is standing behind the report and stating that the only reason that they lack the evidence to back it up is that the report came from French intelligence sources and those sources refused to provide the evidence over concerns that it might be used to bolster the case for going into Iraq.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=&q=Niger+French
You might argue whether or not you believe this is the case, but I find it rather telling when I look at who is NOT discussing this very big wrinkle in the news.
Yes, but who told the French? I like the way this chain of information seems to be getting longer by the day...
I read the story Scrat referred to - full of "it is believed", and "it was said by officials"...
none of which takes away from the point that Bush shouldn't have made the scarey case he did about Iraq's capabilities - none of which changes the fact that the support for the war was gained largely in the wake of that fear...
Kinsley's well honed literary knife slices through the political bullshit, serving it up nicely to all those hungry politicians in place of crow.
Need more of this, and in the face style!
snood wrote:I read the story Scrat referred to - full of "it is believed", and "it was said by officials"...
none of which takes away from the point that Bush shouldn't have made the scarey case he did about Iraq's capabilities - none of which changes the fact that the support for the war was gained largely in the wake of that fear...
I referred to no specific story, so I'm unclear how you could now be referring to one. But if you are aware of any news story regarding this matter that is not rife with terms like "claimed", "believed" and "argued", please cite it.
Also, do me a favor; cite for me the specific language Bush used to make "the scarey case he did" regarding the nuclear/Niger connection. I think it would be useful for us all to be able to consider just exactly what he said, rather than arguing over whether it was a "scary case" (or was not) in the abstract.
scrat wrote: think it would be useful for us all to be able to consider just exactly what he said
"Us all" know what he said and consider it to be a lie and a ridiculous attempt at fear mongering - don't include "us all" with your weak argument - thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BillW wrote:scrat wrote: think it would be useful for us all to be able to consider just exactly what he said
"Us all" know what he said and consider it to be a lie and a ridiculous attempt at fear mongering - don't include "us all" with your weak argument - thanks!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bill - Are you really so stupid that you think my suggesting we all
consider something means I'm pretending we all agree? I think many people here do know exactly what Bush said. I also suspect you are not among them.
Scrat wrote:snood wrote:I read the story Scrat referred to - full of "it is believed", and "it was said by officials"...
none of which takes away from the point that Bush shouldn't have made the scarey case he did about Iraq's capabilities - none of which changes the fact that the support for the war was gained largely in the wake of that fear...
I referred to no specific story, so I'm unclear how you could now be referring to one. But if you are aware of any news story regarding this matter that is not rife with terms like "claimed", "believed" and "argued", please cite it.
Also, do me a favor; cite for me the specific language Bush used to make "the scarey case he did" regarding the nuclear/Niger connection. I think it would be useful for us all to be able to consider just exactly what he said, rather than arguing over whether it was a "scary case" (or was not) in the abstract.
True - you cited no particular story, but if one clicked on the "google" link you provided, the first story on that page was the only one making a case against the French, to which you referred. And if you don't think that references to Iraq obtaining uranium were not intended to elicit reactions of fear, and hence support for the war, then no amount of persuasion is going to help you.
Gees, I don't make assumptions about what you write - stupid is your writing if you say so!!!!!!!!!! Don't ever include me as part of your stupidity, thanks in advance!!!!!!!!!
Jack Straw made the comment that the Brits had never seen the report on Niger-Iraq that had been made and reported upon at the request of the CIA and State - by Joseph Wilson. But the Bush babies contend their info was based on what they received from the Brits. So who received what? When? Round and round they go. Apparently the WH never learned that the best lie is based on at least part of the truth, so you don't get tangled up in all the lies.
Scrat - you're always asking people for specific language and sources. You state there are lots of reports in the media right now saying Britain is standing by its statements (as though Blair had a choice right now) and
"that the only reason that they lack the evidence to back it up is that the report came from French intelligence sources and those sources refused to provide the evidence over concerns that it might be used to bolster the case for going into Iraq. "
I read a fair number of newspapers and online stuff, and I haven't seen a single report about French intelligence. What I have read is that Straw said some of the intelligence sources were from foreign sources, and they can't divulge them for various reasons, which does lead to the question of the Bush people saying they got their intelligence from the Brits.
So what are all these media sources you refer to? If this is such a big non-discussed wrinkle in the news, where does it come from?
I also read that Israeli intelligence had said that part of Iraqi's arsenal consisted of six unarmed SCUD missiles, which may be one reason the U.S. did not use that intelligence.
Specifics, scrat, specifics! You're certainly welcome to your opinion, but if you're going to state anything as fact, back it up.
MJ - Sorry, I guess using the Google link I offered and simply reading ANY news article from among the hundreds there is too much work for you. Let me cite from a couple and save you the trouble:
Quote:France is expected to be blamed for the split between the CIA and MI6 - on the grounds that Paris intelligence agencies shared hard evidence with Britain, but refused to show it to the US.
As Britain is forbidden from passing on this intelligence, it will be argued, the UK can be sure about the Niger connection - even though the CIA says there is not enough evidence to substantiate the claim.
Aides to both the Prime Minister and George Bush, the US president, are anxious to draw a line under the dispute before Thursday, when Mr Blair is due to address a joint session of the US Congress.
Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, confirmed that British officials had not compiled independent reports.
"This information on which we relied ... came from foreign intelligence sources," he told BBC Radio.
"We believe in the veracity of the intelligence ... it just happens to be one of the rules of liaison with foreign intelligence services that they own the intelligence."
A White House spokesman said Washington is not denying Britain's claim about the Niger connection, merely saying that the CIA does not have enough evidence to corroborate it.
http://www.thescotsman.co.uk/politics.cfm?id=767622003
Quote:PARIS, July 14 (Reuters) - France denied on Monday it had supplied Britain with the intelligence behind London's assertion that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had attempted to import uranium from Africa. "Contrary to the insinuations that have appeared in the British press, France is not the origin of intelligence published in the British report dated September 24, 2002 and relating to Iraq's nuclear programme," the foreign ministry said in a terse statement.
The Financial Times reported on Monday that two foreign governments it said were "thought to be France and Italy" had supplied Britain with information which added to now-discredited domestic intelligence documents.
A diplomat in Vienna told Reuters he also believed Britain's evidence came from French intelligence services.
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L14111884.htm
Quote:The Italian government on Sunday denied reports that its intelligence services handed the United States and Britain documents indicating that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger for a nuclear weapons programme.
The denial followed a report by Italy's Corriere della Sera newspaper that Rome's SISMI intelligence services had given Washington and London documents in late 2001, showing the regime of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had sought uranium from the African state.
The Daily Telegraph reported that ''U.S. intelligence sources believe that the most likely source of the MI6 intelligence was the French secret service, the DGSE. Niger is a former French colony and its uranium mines are run by a french company that comes under the control of the French atomic energy commission.''
The French secret service is believed to have refused to allow MI6 to give the Americans ''credible'' information showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, the Telegraph reported.
A third British newspaper, The Guardian, cited government officials saying the nuclear claim came from a ''close ally'' but one which didn't want Britain to give it to the U.S. as a further pretext for war.
http://www.chronwatch.com/featured/contentDisplay.asp?aid=3463
Is that enough for you, or should I cite from 10, 50, 100? Or maybe next time you can do as others clearly did, click on the Google link I provided, and read a story or two at random from the 280 Google's news search returned.
Shame on you, mamaj - now you done gone and flustered the boy agin!
Gee, scrat, thanks. Now, if only you would state specific sources when you start, rather than having someone ask for some...............
Although I note, they're chock full of denials, and supposed to have saids, and stuff like that.
Snood - nothing flusters a (self) righteous mind.
We all know, or should know, or refuse to admit (depending upon predilection) that the Shrub and Company are liars par excellence. So, in the context of this thread, the relevant question is how may this be turned to the advantage of a candidate running against the witless boy?
