When Dems KNOW they're wrong...

[insein]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak15.html

Usually a liberal democrat will debate you to the living end if they have any inkling that their POV has some basis in truth. Even if its completely false and they believe some of it to be true, they'll debate you to their dieing breath. When they KNOW they are dead wrong, they give no response at all and ignore the issue.

Wilson contradictions leave Democrat senators speechless

July 15, 2004

BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST





Like Sherlock Holmes' dog that did not bark, the most remarkable aspect of last week's Senate Intelligence Committee report is what its Democratic members did not say. They did not dissent from the committee's findings that Iraq apparently asked about buying yellowcake uranium from Niger. They neither agreed to a conclusion that former diplomat Joseph Wilson was suggested for a mission to Niger by his CIA employee wife nor defended his statements to the contrary.



Wilson's activities constituted the only aspects of the yearlong investigation for which the committee's Republican chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, was unable to win unanimous agreement. According to committee sources, Roberts felt Wilson had been such a ''cause celebre'' for Democrats that they could not face the facts about him.

For a year, Democrats have been belaboring President Bush about 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union address in which he reported Saddam Hussein's attempt to buy uranium from Africa, based on British information. Wilson has been lionized in liberal circles for allegedly contradicting this information on a CIA mission and then being punished as a truth-teller. Now, for committee Democrats, it is as though the Niger question and Joe Wilson have vanished from the Earth.

Because a Justice Department special prosecutor is investigating whether any crime was committed when my column first identified Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA employee, on advice of counsel I have not written on the subject since October. However, I feel compelled to describe how the committee report treats the Niger-Wilson affair because it has received scant coverage except in a few media outlets. The unanimously approved report said, ''interviews and documents provided to the Committee indicate that his wife, a CPD (CIA counterproliferation division) employee, suggested his name for the trip.'' That's what I reported, and what Wilson flatly denied and still does.

Plame sent out an internal CIA memo saying ''my husband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.'' A State Department analyst told the committee about an inter-agency meeting in 2002 that was ''apparently convened by [Wilson's] wife, who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.''

The committee found that the CIA report, based on Wilson's mission, differed considerably from the former ambassador's description to the committee of his findings. That report ''did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.'' As far as his statement to the Washington Post about ''forged documents'' involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have ''misspoken.'' In fact, the intelligence community agreed that ''Iraq was attempting to procure uranium from Africa.''

''While there was no dispute with the underlying facts,'' Chairman Roberts wrote separately, ''my Democrat colleagues refused to allow'' two conclusions in the report. The first conclusion merely said that Wilson was sent to Niger at his wife's suggestion. The second conclusion is devastating: ''Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided.''

The normally mild Roberts is harsh in his condemnation: ''Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the president had lied to the American people, that the vice president had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. . . . [N]ot only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.'' Roberts called it ''important'' for the committee to declare much of what Wilson said ''had no basis in fact.'' In response, Democrats were silent.

 

[Annie]

http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak15.html

Usually a liberal democrat will debate you to the living end if they have any inkling that their POV has some basis in truth. Even if its completely false and they believe some of it to be true, they'll debate you to their dieing breath. When they KNOW they are dead wrong, they give no response at all and ignore the issue.

It's so weird!

 

[TheOne]

I am not sure I am clear on this. Were the documents not forgeries that described the Bill of Sale of yellowcake from Niger to Iraq? I have not seen anything that debunks that claim.

 

[dilloduck]

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh-----It will disappear.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I am not sure I am clear on this. Were the documents not forgeries that described the Bill of Sale of yellowcake from Niger to Iraq? I have not seen anything that debunks that claim.

"As far as his statement to the Washington Post about ''forged documents'' involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have ''misspoken.''"

http://www.rif.org

 

[Annie]

"As far as his statement to the Washington Post about ''forged documents'' involved in the alleged Iraqi attempt to buy uranium, Wilson told the committee he may have ''misspoken.''"

http://www.rif.org

In a word: No duh!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

In a word: No duh!

Reading is apparently a lost art to some.

 

[phadras]

Intelligence Committee Report-------------Wilson LIED!!!!!!
And lied repeatedly... Worhtless puke.....Ah but the New York Times and libs love ole Joey so.... Pathetic!!!!!!
The Brits and CIA were right. Iraq was trying to obtain Uranium...... Joe lied and made a bundle on his book selling it to liberal morons who could care less about truth if it mukes up their Bush-bashing agenda....

 

[TheOne]

Reading is apparently a lost art to some.

Joseph Wilson wasn't the person who analyzed the documents and determined they were forged. How can he claim to have erred on that count? Mohamed ElBaradei, from the IAEA was the person who claimed the documents were forgeries.

"A key piece of evidence linking Iraq to a nuclear weapons program appears to have been fabricated, the United Nations' chief nuclear inspector said yesterday in a report that called into question U.S. and British claims about Iraq's secret nuclear ambitions. Documents that purportedly showed Iraqi officials shopping for uranium in Africa two years ago were deemed "not authentic" after careful scrutiny by U.N. and independent experts, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), told the U.N. Security Council."

article

PS: Is it your normal debating style to use insults and sarcasm to make your point? I was merely seeking clarification, there was no need to link a chidren's reading web site.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Joseph Wilson wasn't the person who analyzed the documents and determined they were forged. How can he claim to have erred on that count? Mohamed ElBaradei, from the IAEA was the person who claimed the documents were forgeries.

Regardless. Wilson himself backed off his own comments. That should mean something to you.

PS: Is it your normal debating style to use insults and sarcasm to make your point? I was merely seeking clarification, there was no need to link a chidren's reading web site.

Get over it, wuss.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

from a summary of the Butler Report found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3892809.stm



Uranium from Niger

British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was "credible". There was not conclusive evidence Iraq actually purchased the material, nor did the government make that claim.

Read it and weep, libs.

 

[TheOne]

Regardless. Wilson himself backed off his own comments. That should mean something to you.

It's really not "regardless". You answered my honest question with an arrogant, disrespectful response and you were wrong. Perhaps you should temper your reflexive responses in the future to avoid further embarassment.

Get over it, wuss.

If by "wuss" you mean weak and cowardly, that's ironic you would issue this personal attack behind the safety of your computer screen and anonymity of this forum.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's really not "regardless". You answered my honest question with an arrogant, disrespectful response and you were wrong. Perhaps you should temper your reflexive responses in the future to avoid further embarassment.

Settle down, Selena. The brits still stand behind this Niger claim. Go read the most recent Butler commission report for detail. YOU are wrong. It is unfortunate the Dems have put so much stock in "the sixteen words". I feel your pain.

If by "wuss" you mean weak and cowardly, that's ironic you would issue this personal attack behind the safety of your computer screen and anonymity of this forum.

It's not ironic, it's wise. Cheers, TheWrongOne!
I win. You lose.

 

[TheOne]

Settle down, Selena. The brits still stand behind this Niger claim. Go read the most recent Butler commission report for detail. YOU are wrong. It is unfortunate the Dems have put so much stock in "the sixteen words". I feel your pain.


It's not ironic, it's wise. Cheers, TheWrongOne!
I win. You lose.

Who is Selena? The issue is not what the British stand behind, the issue is whether the documents that were described as the bill of sale for uranium yellowcake were forgeries or not. That was my initial question. You replied by sarcastically insulting my reading comprehension when it was you who misinterpreted the text. Joseph Wilson couldn't have "mispoke" on the authenticity of the these documents because he was not the person who deemed them to be fraudulent, the IAEA was.

What did you win? What did I lose?

 

[insein]

See. He has an ounce of truth to go on and still somehow believes to be right and fights to the dieing end. Even if its arguing over the tone of the conversation instead of the SUBSTANCE.

 

[TheOne]

See. He has an ounce of truth to go on and still somehow believes to be right and fights to the dieing end. Even if its arguing over the tone of the conversation instead of the SUBSTANCE.

I asked was whether Wilson said he "misspoke" about the documents from Niger being forgeries if that meant they weren't forgeries. The fact of the matter is, that the documents ARE forgeries and the IAEA had determined that. Wilson "misspoke" when he claimed the "dates and names were wrong" because he hadn't even seen the documents to make that analysis.

I just wanted to determine if the documents were indeed forgeries.

 

[spillmind]

i think the most telling point is how rightwing 'avenger' slams the counter agruement with linking a kid's site, but says NOTHING about insein's horrendous grammar. if this doesn't tell you just about everything about his debating style, i don't know what does. it's a total partisan contradiction, and most bushies here actively engage in this practice.... it makes me wonder. are you people even AWARE OF IT?!

the root of the problem on topic is this : 'based on British information' BAD INFORMATION, AT THAT.

WHY THE HELL ARE WE WAGING WAR WHEN WE ARE BASING IT ON FLAWED INTEL? WHY THE HYPE IT UP LIKE IRAQ WAS THE SINGLE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE US WHEN IT WAS ALL BULLSH!T?!!!

and moreoever, why are you people ok with it? is bush the golden child? had a dem made this HORRENDOUS ERROR THAT HAS COST THOUSANDS OF LIVES, the guys would have been strung up by his nuts by now! hypocrites.

 

[spillmind]

I asked was whether Wilson said he "misspoke" about the documents from Niger being forgeries if that meant they weren't forgeries. The fact of the matter is, that the documents ARE forgeries and the IAEA had determined that. Wilson "misspoke" when he claimed the "dates and names were wrong" because he hadn't even seen the documents to make that analysis.
I just wanted to determine if the documents were indeed forgeries.

good luck getting a straight answer it's like pulling teeth with some of them.

 

[freeandfun1]

had a dem made this HORRENDOUS ERROR THAT HAS COST THOUSANDS OF LIVES, the guys would have been strung up by his nuts by now! hypocrites.

actually, Clinton should be hung by the balls for not doing anything during his 8 years. He is on tape as having said that he could have had OBL when he was offered to the USA by Sudan, but he wasn't sure if we "had a legal case". Yet somehow, Bush was supposed to have known that 911 was going to happen. The Dems did make a horrendous error and it caused 9-11.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Who is Selena? The issue is not what the British stand behind, the issue is whether the documents that were described as the bill of sale for uranium yellowcake were forgeries or not. That was my initial question. You replied by sarcastically insulting my reading comprehension when it was you who misinterpreted the text. Joseph Wilson couldn't have "mispoke" on the authenticity of the these documents because he was not the person who deemed them to be fraudulent, the IAEA was.

What did you win? What did I lose?

The point is that the british have a chain of proof that doesn't involve those documents at all. Can you comprehend that? You're asking about a broken bridge that isn't even en route.

Go read the Butler Report.

Once again: http://www.rif.org