Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That would suggest that (1) Wilson didn't know, and told the truth, or (2) Wilson lied.

Agreed

As you say, neither one has much to do with anything. It doesn't affect the legality of the leaking of Plame's name, and it doesn't change the fact that Wilson was right about the Niger angle and many others were wrong.

As we have discussed, I don't agree with the action, but it is not clear whether this was per se illegal. As for Wilson being right, I'm not sure how you can continue to unambiguously assert this, given the reporting done by FT and the fact that the UK still stands by it.

If there is such a memo, it's hard for me to understand why Senate Democrats wouldn't agree with the three Republicans who wrote separately to trash Wilson. Roberts seemed to acknowledge that there were disagreements about what happened.

I have not read the report in depth and have not read the memo, but from what I understand the memo does not say "I, Plume, hereby recommend my husband." Rather, it says something like "My husband has X experience in this area." Perhaps the Senate Dems do not view this as a per se recommendation. This was discussed on Special Report last night, and even Mort Kondrache (Roll Call) and Mara Liason (NPR) find this dubious.

[Say_hello_for_me]

Originally posted by the Spartan
DA BEARS!

its just another sign that Chicago is dying. There are not too many credible Republicans left in the state. Even the soon-to-retire U.S. Senator recently bought a home in McLean VA.

At some point, the local population will realize that the city and state are run by machines, be they democratic or republican, and the machines are both almost entirely corrupt.

Chicago lost 40K between the last two censuses. Its what you get if you keep throwing more and more money from taxpayers at more and more people who refuse to put in a hard day's work. Eventually the taxpayers find somewhere else to live.

Note to Coltrane, Hand, Taxwonk and Mmmm: the unemployment rate in the DC area is around 3% (including the surrounding suburbs). Jobs abound. Come to the light b/c even da coach can't save Chicago from its own lazy and corrupt citizens.

Hello

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
As we have discussed, I don't agree with the action, but it is not clear whether this was per se illegal. As for Wilson being right, I'm not sure how you can continue to unambiguously assert this, given the reporting done by FT and the fact that the UK still stands by it.

I mean that Wilson was right about the larger question -- we now know that Iraq did not have a nuclear program, and the only question left is how embarrassed those who suggested otherwise should now be: very, or somewhat.

I have not read the report in depth and have not read the memo, but from what I understand the memo does not say "I, Plume, hereby recommend my husband." Rather, it says something like "My husband has X experience in this area." Perhaps the Senate Dems do not view this as a per se recommendation. This was discussed on Special Report last night, and even Mort Kondrache (Roll Call) and Mara Liason (NPR) find this dubious.

I have read the report and so much of it is redacted that I can't tell what each side is thinking. I have not followed the coverage of this. It baffles me that conservatives would want to dwell on this story, since whether Wilson was lying or not about how he got the gig, he went to Niger, came back and said there was no basis for the uranium scare, and now has been proved right. The people who are trying to trash him are so caught up in the fight that they have lost all perspective.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Note to Coltrane, Hand, Taxwonk and Mmmm: the unemployment rate in the DC area is around 3% (including the surrounding suburbs). Jobs abound. Come to the light b/c even da coach can't save Chicago from its own lazy and corrupt citizens.

There's something a little bizarre about extolling DC in this context. Move to the nation's capitol, where you can find a job insulated from the free market sucking off the taxpayers' teat!

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
...and it doesn't change the fact that Wilson was right about the Niger angle...

Except for the fact that he wasn't...

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have read the report and so much of it is redacted that I can't tell what each side is thinking. I have not followed the coverage of this. It baffles me that conservatives would want to dwell on this story, since whether Wilson was lying or not about how he got the gig, he went to Niger, came back and said there was no basis for the uranium scare, and now has been proved right. The people who are trying to trash him are so caught up in the fight that they have lost all perspective.

It has been argued that how he was hired goes to his credibility. To me it is not relavent, but that is what the chattering classes are saying.

He has not been "proven right" about the uranium scare, and you conveniently ignored by post on this. Remember, Wilson is only a moderately significant figure in all this mess because he raised the 16 SOTU words issue. The UK stands by their assessment of the Niger issue and FT reporting is backing that up. So how is he proven right?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It has been argued that how he was hired goes to his credibility. To me it is not relavent, but that is what the chattering classes are saying.

So what? Why is his credibility important? It has nothing to do with the legality of burning his wife, and it has nothing to do with the decision to go to war? It's only of interest to people wanting to trash him.

eta: As Kevin Drum says, "Bottom line: Joe Wilson could be the biggest liar since Baron Munchausen, but who cares? Having gotten things started, he's now out of the picture. Fitzgerald is all that matters now."

He has not been "proven right" about the uranium scare, and you conveniently ignored by post on this. Remember, Wilson is only a moderately significant figure in all this mess because he raised the 16 SOTU words issue. The UK stands by their assessment of the Niger issue and FT reporting is backing that up. So how is he proven right?

(1) We don't know the rest of the story about the forged documents.

(2) Our intel people thought the British were all wet on that story, so it's a little bizarre to see conservatives ignore our own intel in favor of theirs simply because theirs reaches the right result, particularly when we don't know their sources. While bizarre, it does underscore the larger problem with pinning the policy failures on the CIA, which is that it's painfully obvious that the White House is deciding what it wants to do, and then cherry-picking whatever intelligence supports that end (here, British intel, no matter that the CIA said it was wrong), and, further, that the CIA got the message and told the White House only what it wanted to hear. This, presumably, is why the CIA apparently never bothered to tell Cheney what Wilson said when he got back from Niger, notwithstanding that Cheney's request for more info apparently was what got him sent there in the first place.

(3) There was no nuclear program. Iraq was not trying to get uranium. So the only question now is how embarrassed all these people should be. Wilson was on the right side of that one.*

(4) If you are defending Bush from lying in the State of the Union re the Nigerian uranium, I think you can rest easy, for others have already fallen on their swords for him. Even though the same claim was taken out of an earlier Bush speech because the CIA said it was wrong, and even though it's not clear why White House speechwriters were working so hard to put it back in -- lack of more compelling support for the war, perhaps? -- Tenet took the blame for not reading the speech. Conveniently enough, he has resigned. No one but no one pretends that Bush bothered to inform himself about what was, you know, in his own speech, so we all just accept that the President is a mouthpiece for whoever is feeding him policy, and -- since the speechwriters are off the hook until the election -- we've all decided to chalk it up to structural problems and Tenet's oversight.

"The buck stops here."
-- Harry S Truman

* eta: George Tenet: "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president....and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
(1) We don't know the rest of the story about the forged documents.

The British intelligence does not depend on this.

(2) Our intel people thought the British were all wet on that story, so it's a little bizarre to see conservatives ignore our own intel in favor of theirs simply because theirs reaches the right result, particularly when we don't know their sources. While bizarre, it does underscore the larger problem with pinning the policy failures on the CIA, which is that it's painfully obvious that the White House is deciding what it wants to do, and then cherry-picking whatever intelligence supports that end (here, British intel, no matter that the CIA said it was wrong), and, further, that the CIA got the message and told the White House only what it wanted to hear. This, presumably, is why the CIA apparently never bothered to tell Cheney what Wilson said when he got back from Niger, notwithstanding that Cheney's request for more info apparently was what got him sent there in the first place.

Assuming the British turn out to be right, I think what this proves is that the CIA is entirely incompetent.

(3) There was no nuclear program. Iraq was not trying to get uranium. So the only question now is how embarrassed all these people should be. Wilson was on the right side of that one.*

You keep repeating that, but assuming the Brits are correct, I'm not sure how you can continue to do so.

(4) If you are defending Bush from lying in the State of the Union re the Nigerian uranium . . . .

I'm not. I think it is now clear to everyone save, perhaps, the City of SF, that he did not lie. Why I'm concerned about is what actually happened with Saddam. Was he or was he not attempting to get nuclear material? The Brits say yes. The FT backs this up and says other European intelligence agencies also stand by this story. We shall see.

[sgtclub]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040714/D83QLSPO0.html

[HRC not on list of speakers at DEM convention]

[sgtclub]

In a report that otherwise blasts the UK intelligence services, the Niger story is given credence:

However, the report supported Britain's disputed claim that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Niger, saying it came from "several different sources" and had not relied on documents exposed as forgeries by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040714/D83QMEP00.html

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The British intelligence does not depend on this.

This is true as far as it goes, but we don't know what the British intelligence does depend on.

Assuming the British turn out to be right, I think what this proves is that the CIA is entirely incompetent.

Assuming our conclusions, we find out that we were right all the time! Funny that.

The British say they have sources suggesting that Iraqis went to Niger in 1999 to try to buy uranium. Not that they did buy it, or that it was even possible to get uranium out of flooded or French-controlled mines -- that this was their aim. We will never know if this "turns out to be right" because they're not sharing their sources. But if you assume that it is correct, and you look at why CIA said this stuff shouldn't go into Bush's speech in Cincinnati, you don't conclude that the CIA is incompetent. If you disagree, please explain.

You keep repeating that, but assuming the Brits are correct, I'm not sure how you can continue to do so.

"Correct" about what? That their sources said the Iraqis were trying, or that it was true? The latter is what matters now. We now control Iraq. We know their nuclear program was defunct. We have zero reason to believe there was any reason for Iraq to be trying to obtain uranium from Niger in 1999. Even if the 16 words in the State of the Union address were literally true, they are transparently irrelevant to any continuing justification for war.

I'm not. I think it is now clear to everyone save, perhaps, the City of SF, that he did not lie. Why I'm concerned about is what actually happened with Saddam. Was he or was he not attempting to get nuclear material? The Brits say yes. The FT backs this up and says other European intelligence agencies also stand by this story. We shall see.

I don't think the Brits are really adhering to the story that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium. They're just standing by their sources. What do you think Iraq was going to do with the uranium? Their nuclear program was defunct.

But that's not about Bush's state of mind. Do you really think that Bush knew any of this? He doubtless wanted his speechwriters to write him something that made the case for war. To this end, they tossed in the claim about Niger uranium, even though the CIA had told the White House to take it out of the Cincinnati speech. Did the speechwriters not know about its omission from the earlier speech? If so, that's Condi Rice's fault. If they knew, why were they so intent on putting it in the State of the Union? When they were told that the CIA thought the British intel was bad, why did they insist on including it as something the "British learned" instead of omitting it?

If I no longer think Bush was lying about this, it's because I'm convinced that he didn't care enough about the details to learn. But he still must take responsibility for presiding over an administration that cared more about scaring people into war than getting the facts right.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In a report that otherwise blasts the UK intelligence services, the Niger story is given credence:

Would you buy a pig in a poke from the British? If we're going to accept what they say at face value, without the back-up, instead of what our own intelligence professionals say, why don't we disband the CIA and save a billion dollars, and just ask them to share their conclusions with us?

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Would you buy a pig in a poke from the British? If we're going to accept what they say at face value, without the back-up, instead of what our own intelligence professionals say, why don't we disband the CIA and save a billion dollars, and just ask them to share their conclusions with us?

Sometimes we don't like their conclusions. We like to have a choice.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Stan Collender at the National Journal
At some point over the next few weeks, the Office of Management and Budget will release the administration's midsession budget review and try to convince everyone the federal deficit is falling. Don't believe them. OMB is likely to say its latest projection shows the fiscal 2004 deficit will be around $420 billion, about $100 billion less than the $521 billion the administration forecast when it released its budget in February. Administration officials will say this is an indication of how much better the budget outlook has gotten over the past few months and that the president's policies are working.

What they won't say is that the deficit situation is actually getting worse. A $420 billion deficit... record will replace the one set last year, when the deficit reached $375 billion. The administration also won't say that the "improvement" is due to what now must be taken as a consistent pattern of questionable projections and forecasts. Last year's midsession review projected a fiscal 2003 deficit of $455 billion. A mere 10 weeks later, when the actual number turned out to be $80 billion less, the White House claimed the lower number was because of the president's economic program and sound management. But the "improvement" was mostly due to the unrealistically high forecast included in the midsession review. There is almost nothing that can be done in the last quarter of a fiscal year to increase revenues or reduce spending by anything close to $80 billion. This forecasting was either politically motivated or just plain bad, and the characterization of it as an improvement was nothing more than spin.

If the widely expected $420 billion deficit figure turns out to be correct, then it will not be wrong if the White House claims the budget outlook has improved compared to what it previously forecast. But it will be wrong for the administration to say the deficit is falling when, in fact, it is rising. Not only would such a claim be disingenuous, it would continue to harm the White House's already damaged credibility on the budget and economy...

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by sgtclub
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040714/D83QLSPO0.html

[HRC not on list of speakers at DEM convention]

I'm not convinced that she won't be giving the acceptance speech.

Does anyone know if Kerry has any scheduled appearances at Ft. Marcy park in the next few weeks? Or any US Air Force flights over Croatia?