Replies

she apparently thinks that the statement about Saddam trying to buy uranium was mistaken.

In fairness, I think it should be pointed out that, if she believed the statement was mistaken, the White House shared her view on that question:

"Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech," a senior Bush administration official said last night in a statement authorized by the White House.

Washington Post, July 8, 2003

In fairness, I think it should be pointed out that, if she believed the statement was mistaken, the White House shared her view on that question

True, but apparently for different reasons.

The White House didn't say that the statement was based on "faulty intelligence", just intelligence that our sources had been unable to verify.

Indeed, the Brits still stand by their intelligence, and the administration seems to believe it valid as well.

I believe the White House's point currently is not that the statement was untrue in any way, but that statements based on foreign intelligence shouldn't be included in the SOTU address?

Do you see the issue that others have been raising, that although CC might have raised points A, B and C in her thesis, she conspicuously left out points D and E?

The discussion that she was attempting to elicit, imo, narrowed the field of discussion.

The additional issue has involved CC not disclosing her role as a 'journalist'. Many have seen that as disingenous and raised the spectre of her motive.

Did she leave out that information, intentionally? Did she not see the information as germaine to her discussion piece? IF she left it out intentionally, for what reason(s)? Would the inclusion of the information limited the discussion? If a 'full' discussion was being solicited, what role did her role as a journalist, or her own personal bias, play in 'limiting' the options she offered?

Way too many questions have not been answered, imo. And when they were asked, they apparently were viewed as a personal attack. Some were, some were not. But all questions were viewed, imo, thru that 'personal attack' prism.

And the defenders accused the accusers of NOT addressing the topic....while, for the main part, the defenders focused almost entirely on points having nothing to do with the topic. So a circle of finger pointing ensued.

All in all....a poorly designed topic compounded with a lack of full disclosure on the part of the writer, almost guaranteed a total fiasco.

The fiasco was achieved.