« Rosa Parks | Main | Ah, How It Takes Me Back... »

October 26, 2005

Comments

Nell- Kudos. I thought I understood things well enough, but now I understand better, thanks.

So my question is, when did the administration actually have the (forged) documents in its possession? Did they know the documents were forged at the time of the State of the Union address?

Remember, these documents were obvious forgeries (wrong names and dates). It's not credible that given the actual documents (not transcriptions) the administration believed them to be genuine.

Jesurgislac"

Maybe you could try something different? Like writing plainly and clearly what you mean, and not deliberately misunderstanding other people's plain and clear statements?

Maybe, novelty of novelties, you could simply read what I write instead of reading what you're sure I must mean. You would've saved a lot of steps if you had.

CC:

You may well have shrunk from the final words, Slart, but they were certainly implicit. Otherwise your point is entirely meaningless.

I have no idea what you mean by this; care to elaborate? What final words?

rilkefan:

it's still clearly entirely wrong

Show me.

Nell:

So something had to be done to discredit and punish the dissenting 'community', before the idea took hold that all the weapons claims were tissue paper, and that the President and Vice President had known that as they pushed the country to war.

You know, I think if Wilson HAD gone after the IC, he probably would have pissed off a whole lot of people in ways that at least partially cancel each other. When you come out and claim that the President and VP are liars, though, expect to lock horns with a unified executive branch. Not excusing what was done to his wife, mind you, just noting that if he'd had issue with the IC, he would have done well to take on the IC. Given, of course, that his issue was actually with the IC.

So my question is, when did the administration actually have the (forged) documents in its possession? Did they know the documents were forged at the time of the State of the Union address?

For a timeline, go here (searchable version of the Senate Intelligence Committee report) and search for "forge". Short answer: we had them since at least October 2002, but they weren't revealed as forgeries until March 2003, if I'm reading that correctly.

Note that there's quite a bit of understated CIA-whacking over the obviousness of the forgeries, and over the CIA's failure to give the documents much of a vetting.

Slarti: Maybe, novelty of novelties, you could simply read what I write instead of reading what you're sure I must mean.

Maybe you could read and respond to what I write? And try to write clearly and without obfustication?

Or, you know, when it's such a deeply uncomfortable subject for you - such as that false statement in SOTU 2003 - just drop it rather than talking round it in twisty, twisty circles?

But in any case: When you insist on writing in twisty obscure prose, you have no grounds to complain that other people don't understand you.

When you come out and claim that the President and VP are liars, though, expect to lock horns with a unified executive branch.

Please point to and quote the part of Wilson's op-ed where he claimed that the President and the Vice-President are liars.

Slarti- I'm going to add my voice to Jes's and point out that Wilson did not call the Prez or Vice Pres liars prior to the smear against him starting. Not in the famous Times op ed, not in the less famous earlier op ed, not according to the 2 prior articles in which Wilson was an anonymous source. Interestingly Wilson showed the Palo Alto opp ed before publication to Scowcroft who showed it to both the senior and junior Bush.

Your understanding about when the government knew the Niger memo was a forgery is both convenient and wrong. The State Dept knew it was a forgery in 2002, though the CIA claimed not to until 2003, they had conveniently mislaid the forgery in a vault somewhere until 2003.

Um, ok, he didn't say "lied" as such, but he did say "twisted", which means the same thing. Or it would mean the same thing to you if you'd just learned that the administration had twisted the intel on Iraq.

Cite please, Frank. If State knew it was a forgery in 2002, on what basis did they claim (in December 2002) that Iraq has an ongoing effort to procure raw materials for nuclear enrichment?

What Joseph Wilson actually said: "Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat."

How does this mean the same thing as "claiming that the President and VP are liars"?

Or it would mean the same thing to you if you'd just learned that the administration had twisted the intel on Iraq.

Is the "you" in that sentence actually you, Slarti? And when you say "just learned" exactly when you mean?

Slarti: If State knew it was a forgery in 2002, on what basis did they claim (in December 2002) that Iraq has an ongoing effort to procure raw materials for nuclear enrichment?

Either they hadn't been allowed to examine the documents and they were repeating info they had been given from another source; or else they were lying. All credible reports suggest that the forgeries were sufficiently crude that anyone with access to the CIA World Factbook could detect them.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad