"He struck me as a bit off."
CORRECTION MADE: I had transcribed that last word as "odd," which was misheard. Oddly, the meaning isn't that different.
AND: In the comments, Tristram lets me know I should have written: Oddly, the meaning isn't that off. And I note that it's worse to say someone is "off" than "odd."
March 24, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
30 comments:
Anyone answer this question? Did they make Valerie Plame swear to tell the truth when she testified last week? Or was it kind of a guest stint in front of a very friendly committee? You know like being on Oprah or Jack Paar's show.
Whatever one might think about Joe Wilson, the fact is this:
The President, in trying to drum up support for an invasion of Iraq, said in his state of the Union address that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain yellowcake Uranium from Niger. He and his staff had been warned before the address that the information was at best unreliable and likely false.
No one made him say that. Joe Wilson certainly did not make him say that. He chose to say it, in his attempt to justify a war which he had already determined was going to happen, and which has resulted in the deaths of over 3000 American service members, with no end in sight.
So if you condemn Joe Wilson for any lies he told, then don't forget that the President told a much larger lie than that, and certainly with much worse consequences, and so therefore stands under the greater condemnation.
What Bush said was:
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
Not Niger. Africa.
I realize that this does not invalidate your more general claim, but I hate it when people repeatedly make this simple factual error.
That's right Eli. And the reason that Joe Wilson is hated, is because he said that Iraq was not trying to get yellowcake from Niger.
Saddam Hussein was not trying to produce nuclear weapons when we went to war with him.
In other words, Joe Wilson was right. And the President lied to us about going to war. And for that Joe Wilson's reputation had to be destroyed and his wife's career ruined.
All another typical day in the Bush Administration. And the silly Fox News lapdogs who eat this crap up. Truth be damned.
So what if the British said that? They were wrong. And our intelligence (thanks to the proper research of Joe Wilson) knew that it was wrong.
But we have an administration that cherry picks evidence to suit them. They are interested in pursuing an agenda, not in pursuing the truth.
Kind of like how Drudge makes a big headline of every snowstorm, as if that somehow shows that global warming is nonexistent.
"So what if the British said that?"
What the British said was irrelevant. I was responding to what Eli wrote:
"The President ... said ... that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain yellowcake Uranium from Niger."
But he didn't say that. He said the British had evidence "that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Where facts are so easy to determine, it's good to get them right.
For a group of people who are so obssessed about the president getting something wrong, you would think the least that they could do is getthe actual 16 words he used right.....
You mean words like "mission accomplished".
Perhaps I shouldn't speak for Gahrie, but maybe he means words like "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
/via Financial times:
"However, European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq. These intelligence officials now say the forged documents appear to have been part of a "scam", and the actual intelligence showing discussion of uranium supply has been ignored.
The FT has now learnt that three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq. This intelligence provided clues about plans by Libya and Iran to develop their undeclared nuclear programmes. Niger officials were also discussing sales to North Korea and China of uranium ore or the "yellow cake" refined from it: the raw materials that can be progressively enriched to make nuclear bombs.
The raw intelligence on the negotiations included indications that Libya was investing in Niger's uranium industry to prop it up at a time when demand had fallen, and that sales to Iraq were just a part of the clandestine export plan. These secret exports would allow countries with undeclared nuclear programmes to build up uranium stockpiles.
One nuclear counter-proliferation expert told the FT: "If I am going to make a bomb, I am not going to use the uranium that I have declared. I am going to use what I acquire clandestinely, if I am going to keep the programme hidden."
Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq. These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.
But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium."
http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?queryText=niger+iraq&y=13&aje=true&x=17&id=040628000877
So if you condemn Joe Wilson for any lies he told, then don't forget that the President told a much larger lie than that
So now we learn thats false. Bush did not lie, and the Bush Lied! crowd have been parroting misinformation. Ironic, because by their own standard, they can now be labelled liars for getting their intelligence wrong.
"Oddly, the meaning isn't that different"
Hmm, I think you missed an possible moment here:
"Oddly, the meaning isn't that off"
This is all about yesterday.
Today the Islamic Republic of Iran has 15 hostages in Teheran.
Today large members of the former Mahdi Army now report directly to the Iranian government, acc'd to a AP story on Drudge a few days ago.
Today Iranian munitions are being used against US troops in Iraq.
Today someone, possibly Iranians, are using poison gas in Iraq, what the WSM politely calls "chlorine bombs."
Today someone, possibly Iranians, is strapping babies into cars and blowing them up.
And, of course, today Iran is and has been for many years the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism and uses Hezbollah to destabilize Lebanon and Israel.
Today we are not at war with Iran.
At least, we aren't. They are at war with us.
Who is Joe Wilson?
Tristram: Damn!
So when British forces go into a sovereign territory (in this case Iran), and that country arrests them (as the country is PROPERLY entitled to do), suddenly those invaders are considered "hostages" and it is a valid reason for invading that country?
Somehow I don't think we would play be the same rules. Can anyone imagine North Korean soldiers who happen to end up in Manhattan, and subsequently arrested by the US, being considered as "hostages".
Hate to say it - but Iran is in the right here.
One way to identify useful idiots is by their consistent tendency to substitute slogans for thought and rational discourse. And once they have become emotionally invested in a position, they absolutely will not, under any circumstances, change.
The far Left hate Bush, and "hate" is an accurate characterization. BUSH LIED AND PEOPLE DIED is essential to their identity now; and the well-stated, supported arguments (much appreciated) that appear here and elsewhere won't make a dent in the anger.
So, Ann. Does constant repetition of a baseless position qualify as trolling? And if the theme happens to provide a fundamental underpinning to Liberal criticism of the President, and Democratic opposition to the President and the war, will you consider appropriate treatment on your blog? Enquiring minds...
Tribeca:
But it's not clear that the British were in Iranian territory; as of this morning, the British government doesn't think so:
"We believe there's good strong evidence that they were in Iraqi water at the time," Triesman said.
(Not the most ringing of declarations, but then again, he's British.)
However, it is possible could have been a British SNAFU, and the Brits are scrambling for a good face-saving way of saying "Oops!".
Besides, who's advocating going to war over this?
Somehow I don't think we would play be the same rules. Can anyone imagine North Korean soldiers who happen to end up in Manhattan, and subsequently arrested by the US, being considered as "hostages". Hate to say it - but Iran is in the right here.
Regardless of whether you believe Iranian claims that the Brits were in their waters, be advised that Iran is charging these uniformed Brits with espionage, in direct violation of the Geneva Convention.
You were saying something about playing by the same rules?
"Can anyone imagine North Korean soldiers who happen to end up in Manhattan, and subsequently arrested by the US, being considered as "hostages"."
Inapt analogy. If these sailors had happened to end up in Tehran and subsequently arrested by Iran, then yours would work.
However, they were arrested at sea and the only given proof that the waters was territorial to Iran is Iran's assertion, and subsequently brought to Tehran.
A proper analogy would be us capturing some North Korean sailors off the coast of Vancouver, Canada, arresting them, and then bringing them to New York. If we did that, then I think it would be very fair to call them hostages, especially if we were using them to try to get concessions of some sort from North Korea.
And the point made just above me about the Geneva Conventions is a pretty good one too.
"Enigmatic and Ceaderbrain and whomever"
if we captured enemy combatants anywhere, any time, our territory or not, at the will and whim of the president or maybe on standing orders the chances are more likely they will find there way to a military prison without recourse, Gitmo or in a torture cell in a partner country. They don't however, find their way into an international incident and discussion between governments.
Frankly the British should be happy it was Iran who captured them instead of the United States by mistake.
Frankly the British should be happy it was Iran who captured them instead of the United States by mistake.
This is one of the most disgusting things you have said, and that's saying a lot.
Your obvious hatred for all things American is a sad, sad thing.
I strongly doubt HD has a hate for all things American. I do think, though, that he is so filled with rage and anger that he becomes nonsensical and incoherent when he tries to put his ideas in writing.
I hate to think what all those corticosteroids are doing to his insides.
Yes, just like we were lucky back in the 70s that the Iranians took our diplomats hostage, rather than us doing it ourselves. Good point, hdhouse.
Gahrie....of course you miss the point totally. I was dumb to think you would get it...
We are, currently, a nation without laws..just the will and whim of the president. I'm reminded of two animated fortune tellers. One magically told the truth all the time...always got the predictions right..100%. The other told out and out lies all the time, 100% farthest thing from the truth. To the passer by they were identical.
AJ Lynch said...
Anyone answer this question? Did they make Valerie Plame swear to tell the truth when she testified last week? Or was it kind of a guest stint in front of a very friendly committee? You know like being on Oprah or Jack Paar's show."
NO AJ. she was under oath. The guest stint is what Bush wants for his boys...you know, no oath, no record, private, few friends over for drinks. Valerie had the guts to do it in the open under oath.
Your turn.
"Hostages" is sounding more appropriate:
"Iranian student groups called yesterday for the 15 detainees to be held until US forces released five Revolutionary Guards captured in Iraq earlier this year.
Al-Sharq al-Awsat, a Saudi-owned newspaper based in London, quoted an Iranian military source as saying that the aim was to trade the Royal Marines and sailors for these Guards.
The claim was backed by other sources in Tehran. “As soon as the corps’s five members are released, the Britons can go home,” said one source close to the Guards."
7 Nachos barfed:..
"There are two parts of Congress. They produce bills which, once both houses agree on, they send to the president.
and later he spewed: "Yeah, hd, no one in the Bush administration has testified under oath lately. You are right. It's crazy how these Bush hacks are able to get out of testifying and are able to lie with immunity."
7 nachos left off some presidential powers:
a. imprison on his word alone without recourse to the courts
b. issue secret signing statements so he effectively makes new law
c. and my all time favorite, kidnap foreign nationals from their country or passing through ours, send them to torture sites..i think he calls it rendition...and let them go if he feels like it with a tough luck...so i guess President WooWoo has a few more powers than we thought now doesn't he? And I keep looking in the constitution and I can't seem to find them. Maybe if I look in my secretly opened mail, or call on my secretly tapped telephone, or go to the library and look through the monitored checkout rolls, or maybe email someone and..ooops are those intercepted too?
i don't really remember those from civics class do you?
and that last set of whoopers:
well, as a few Senators said this morning...Mr. Gonzales has a little "explaining" to do. Gosh, we haven't had a lying attorney general since when? Ashcroft? oh and that Nixon guy? Mitchell? Yes that's him. seems to run in the republican family.
7 nachos..
i admit i'm cute but you're not and actually i prefer to interact within the species so to speak.
ohhh give the new defense secretary...you know Gates....give him a call..he wanted Gitmo closed but alas, President WooWoo still thinks waterboarding is like 'catch the wave man".
Cool. Dude.
Belmont Club sees the same problem we see re Geneva Conventions:
[via Instapundit]
"As currently interpreted the Geneva Conventions only apply to individuals bent on destroying America. Individuals who blow up elementary schools, kidnap children, attack churches and mosques, kill invalids in wheelchairs, plan attacks on skyscrapers in New York, behead journalists, detonate car bombs with children to camouflage their crime, or board jetliners with explosive shoes -- all while wearing mufti or even women's clothing -- these are all considered "freedom fighters" of the most principled kind. They and they alone enjoy the protections of the Geneva Convention. As to Americans like Tucker and Menchaca or Israeli Gilad Shalit -- or these fifteen British sailors for that matter, it is a case of "what Geneva Convention?"
http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2007/03/name-rank-and-serial-number.html
Shameless plug: Belmont Club is my fav place to lurk for discussion re international events. Highly rec, check it out.
Post a Comment