Lola - NK is saber rattling, not the US. As to your question, yes it is possible that NK is reacting defensively to the notion that we might choose to attack them, but unlikely. They simply had no reason to think we would do so. It is far more likely that they chose the moment they did to play this extortion game because--with us tied up in Iraq--it was the best time for them to do so. Their risk was minimized by our inability to respond quickly and militarily to their actions.
I understand your point of view on this, I just disagree with it.
Durbin Says W.House Pushed for Disputed Iraq Charge
washingtonpost.com
Durbin Says W.House Pushed for Disputed Iraq Charge
Reuters - Thursday, July 17, 2003; 11:11 AM
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Democratic senator charged on Thursday CIA Director George Tenet told members of Congress a White House official insisted on including a disputed allegation about Saddam Hussein's push for a nuclear weapon in a presidential speech.
The allegation by Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin was quickly denounced by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, who called it "nonsense" in the latest exchange on the issue between the Republican White House and Democrats on Capitol Hill.
Durbin told ABC's "Good Morning America" program that Tenet told the Senate Intelligence Committee in a closed-door session on Wednesday that a White House official pushed for including a line about Iraq's attempt to get uranium from Africa in President Bush's State of the Union speech last January.
"He certainly told us who the person was who was insistent on putting this language in which the CIA knew to be incredible, this language about the uranium shipment from Africa. And there was this negotiation between the White House and the CIA about just how far you could go and be close to the truth," Durbin said.
McClellan responded: "I think that characterization is nonsense. It's not surprising coming from someone who is in a rather small minority in Congress that did not support the action that we took."
What seems to be happening is that the perception of Bush has gone from unbeatable to vulnerable. And the opinions jump all over the place. According to a NY Times article today on Ohio, many people there still needed some convincing about the facts of the Iraqi mess, although more said they wee beginning to question it. But most people said they were very concerned about the economy. Seems at this point everyone knows or has actually experienced the job loss situation at first hand, and that's where it means something.
So now more questions about all the WH operations are coming openly, and some from some unexpected people. The shield is down - the Klingons are coming.
It appears that the White House is setting up for another denial - note their webpage list the State of the Union message as "Denial and Deception"
Quote: For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
January 28, 2003
President's Remarks
President Delivers "State of the Union"
The U.S. Capitol
Is it true that they're now claiming that their intelligence came from the Italians? Heard that this afternoon. It occurred to me that if this whole thing starts turning into a joke ("It was the French. No, you mean the Italians. Well, actually, the intel came from our newest best friends, the Romanians"), then it's not that the situation gets defused; it loses the presidential dignity that's required. Beginning to look like tht little Dutch boy with is finger in the dyke.
Don't know if you heard the really interesting analysis on NPR's Talk of the Nation today (I heard it only in part), but Mamaj has hit the nail on the thumb!
Whatever other problems are coming to light, a real complaint is overdue concerning the administration AT THE VERY LEAST behaving very unprofessionally in its choice of intel to rely on, choice of intel to present as solid, and attitude about that choice when it turned out to be a bad one. It's also patently clear that CIA is being blamed a) for not adopting bad MI-5 intel from the Brits, b) for not shutting up about the fact that it warned the admin that this was bad intel, and c) for not trying hard enough to remove the bad intel from Bush's speech because the administration didn't want it removed. I don't usually stand up for the CIA, but in this case, the lesser of two evils (and idiots) is clearly the CIA.
mamajuana wrote:Is it true that they're now claiming that their intelligence came from the Italians? Heard that this afternoon. It occurred to me that if this whole thing starts turning into a joke ("It was the French. No, you mean the Italians. Well, actually, the intel came from our newest best friends, the Romanians"), then it's not that the situation gets defused; it loses the presidential dignity that's required. Beginning to look like tht little Dutch boy with is finger in the dyke.
I cited this article in another discussion:
Quote:British Prime Minister Tony Blair defended yesterday British claims that Saddam Hussein had tried to get uranium from the African state of Niger in the late 1990s.
"I stand by entirely the claim that was made last September," Blair told parliament, referring to the allegation in the British government dossier published in the build up to the Iraq war.
http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/Articles.asp?Article=56544&Sn=WORL
At the end of the same article, you can read this:
Quote:Meanwhile, a newspaper heaped embarrassment on the Italian government by publishing documents implicating its secret services in the Niger-Iraq uranium affair, days before Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi is due to visit Washington.
La Repubblica daily says it passed to Britain and later to the US - contradicting a strong denial issued by Berlusconi's government.
Italy's Foreign Minister Franco Frattini on Tuesday announced an investigation into what he insisted were false claims that Rome was the origin of the false intelligence in late 2001.
Yes, it's looking up...except for Tony Blair's speech today. It sounded so good.........and I would agree with him too, if I didn't know that human reality isn't so simple. His big lines which got all the applause (expect for the standing ovation about Israel) were all about doing right and doing wrong. If all we had to do was just do right and not do wrong, we'd have no problems. Everybody would just do right or at least the wrong doers would be easy to define and punish. And I used to like Tony Blair too.
Scrat,
It's true. We disagree about NK. Oh well, what can we do about it?
au,
you find the funniest jokes!
Lola
Listening to Blair speak only magnifies how poorly Bush does. I hate when Bush is asked a question because I always find myself being embarrassed by what he says and how poorly he expresses himself. After all he is our president and his stupidity reflects badly on all Americans.
Lola wrote:Scrat,
It's true. We disagree about NK. Oh well, what can we do about it?
I think the best we can do is what we are doing now: disagree with courtesy towards each other and wait to see how the issue pans out.
(deleting duplicate post)
double yes, Scrat. Damn the site is slow tonight. Double postings everywhere. It's fine with me if we disagree......it does happen. But just so you know, (I'm right and you're wrong.) Is that polite enough? :wink:
Sorry to be so flippant, I knew I shouldn't have drunk that entire bottle of Spanish white wine..................... oh well, too late now.
Let's loosen up for the evening and decide to agree or something, ok?
(oh, so many spelling errors! that's twice now.)
Lola wrote:double yes, Scrat. Damn the site is slow tonight. Double postings everywhere. It's fine with me if we disagree......it does happen. But just so you know, (I'm right and you're wrong.) Is that polite enough? :wink:
Sorry to be so flippant, I knew I shouldn't have drunk that entire bottle of Spanish white wine..................... oh well, too late now.
Let's loosen up for the evening and deside to agree on something, ok?
I'll agree that you shouldn't have drunk that entire bottle of Spanish white wine, if that'll work for you. :wink:
Enjoy the evening!
sofia
Earlier you addressed me and asked the rhetorical question "Are not the Brits sticking by their guns on the story?" (paraphased)
Yes, they are. But that doesn't tell us anything other than that they are doing that. It would be naive to think that Blair's people and Bush's people aren't working together to steer some PR course designed to produce the minimum of trouble for both of them. Bush's folks are attempting to convince us we ought to be satisfied because their intel came from the Brits (thus Bush's side isn't in error, they just got intel that was...maybe in error) and Blair's folks are saying they got additional intel from a THIRD country, but gosh golly darn, they are prevented by spy ettiquete from telling us who or what. So, nobody is responsible. And (quickly moving shells) look at how evil sadaam is!
It's so transparent and it so insults the citizens' intelligence that I just want to whack these buggers across the kisser with a smelly plucked chicken.
Not the chicken!
And stop answering my rhetorical questions!
It's ok, it was a rhetorical answer.
:wink:
<edited question about grey sausage-shaped thingamabob on blatham's pantaloons>
