Sunday, April 09, 2006

From a Washington Post Editorial called "A Good Leak." Are they full of shit or what? Somebody explain this to me. Did Wilson's report really show the opposite. Even if all this is true, umm. these aren't mutually exclusive are they? and the government is supposed to held to a higher standard than some guy, isn't it?

"Mr. Wilson originally claimed in a 2003 New York Times op-ed and in conversations with numerous reporters that he had debunked a report that Iraq was seeking to purchase uranium from Niger and that Mr. Bush's subsequent inclusion of that allegation in his State of the Union address showed that he had deliberately "twisted" intelligence "to exaggerate the Iraq threat." The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium."
Posted by at

1 comment:

post festum said...

Here's the really fucked up thing -- on Page A1 this morning, the Post runs the following story.

In the battle of dualing banjos that is the relationship between the Post news and editorial divisons, which of these two versions of reality do you think is going to win in the end:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html

"A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic"

[snip]

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for denying under oath that he disclosed Plame's CIA employment to journalists. There is no public evidence to suggest Libby made any such disclosure with Cheney's knowledge. But according to Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney "specifically directed" Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson's visit to Niger.

One striking feature of that decision -- unremarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it -- is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.

United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003, but the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story. With no ally left, the White House debated whether to abandon the uranium claim and became embroiled in bitter finger-pointing about whom to fault for the error. A legal brief filed for Libby last month said that "certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

Sunday, 09 April, 2006

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)