Posted on 07/13/2003 5:51:25 AM PDT by Alas Babylon!
ABC show not on here yet. I'm debating whether to watch it since I've managed to go this long without ever turning on Stephanopoulous since he got the host position.
What?!
You've got the wrong poster and I expect an apology.
When she said "the president" (which I believe she did say--but I type as I listen) I didn't take it to mean as you say. (Though you may be correct.)
What I really took it to mean was a slam at Joseph Wilson who had fashioned himself as the ultimate authority on whether Iraq was seeking yellowcake from Niger.
The line was 16 words in a speech that was over 5,000 words. It certainly wasn't the centerpiece of the speech or even notably significant in the context of the entire speech.
The President said it as if it were the truth, not a theory which may or may not be verified.
And what part of this is untrue or "a theory which may or may not be verified":
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
I don't see anything theoretical in that statement. I also don't see anything false in that statement. The official position of the British government is that Saddam Hussein purchased uranium from an African source. That's still the official position of the British government today.
It is nothing less than Clintonesque to say that the statement was technically correct when the assertion contained within it was false.
Do you know that the statement from the SOTU address is false? What about that statement (or the "assertion contained within it") is false? What are your sources to prove that it is false?
And your use of the term "Clintonesque" is a big stretch. To me "Clintonesque" is saying something you know a reasonable person would call a lie and trying to justify it by twisting the meaning of the words in ways that the average reasonable person would find unbelievable. "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is," is Clintonesque. "She was having sex with me, but I wasn't having sex with her," is Clintonesque.
How is it "Clintonesque" to state something that is factually correct? What's Clintonesque in this whole mess is the way the press and the Dems are trying to read additional meaning into that short 16 word (and also true by the way) statement and then say that their misunderstanding (or gross exaggeration) of the statement makes it a lie.
It does you fool. I wrote ABC on friday over the outrageous headline they had on their website where it said Bush lied or some such nonesense.
Either Ari Fleischer screwed up big time before he left for Africa or the White House should just stick with it was a mistake to put the statement in the State of Union because we couldnt confirm the underlying claim. All this "Clintonesque" parsing of sentences is only going to result in Bush losing credibility with the American people.
G.Steponallofus spent the majority of his questioning with Rumsfeld trying desperately to mischaracterize previous comments by Rumsfeld and other administration people, then trying to put words into Sec. Rumsfeld's mouth, then asking misleading and highly inaccurate questions designed to 'set someone up, anyone', as the democrats are now exposed in their desperation. Was Steponallofus being a journalist or a democrat operative? ... Clearly, Georgie is following orders from someone. Are his orders--which he gleefully pursues; he's more than a willing operative--coming from the DNC or from higher ups at ABC? THAT is what I'll be trying to figure out in the coming days. But make no mistake, there is a designed campaign to try and play gotcha with a fabricate story and a clear campaign to create the appearance of this administration lying to the American people.
Why is littleman Steponallofus working so hard to create this atmosphere? BECAUSE HE WORKED IN AN ADMINISTRATION where the lie and dissembling were standard operating procedure and he thinks he will discover the same deceit underlying the current administration ... and he and his treacherous ilk will create the impression that it is there, even if they cannot 'uncover' such a thing.
Here is a portion of Tenet's statement from a few days ago:
----------------------------------------------------------- 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,(NOTE: Not false) 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.
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.
But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq's significant 550-metric-ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began "vigorously trying to procure" more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: "A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure 'uranium' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake." The Estimate also states: "We do not know the status of this arrangement." With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: "We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources." Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious." (NOTE: The State Department included the word dubious, not the CIA)
An unclassified CIA white paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting (But had not concluded it was false--they still haven't). For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, congressional testimony and the Secretary of State's United Nations presentation in early 2003.
The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.
Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries,(You were wrong to say they were determined in September 2002 to say that determination had been made) officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct, i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.
Little Georgie probably hasn't been LESS prepared for an interview with anyone. Since Rummy's verbal language skills are a lethal weapon, it was an unwise choice for George to skip his homework this week
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.