Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Well, that about wraps it up for Joseph Wilson

Valerie Plame Leak case Joe Wilson Niger Yellow Cake 2004

  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#1 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 12 July 2004 - 09:57 PM

On the heels of the Financial Times' confirmation of Iraq's attempts to buy uranium from Niger comes our own Senate Intelligence Committee report:

Just go here.

Quote

One of the most stunning revelations contained in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on the CIA is that virtually everything Joseph Wilson has said about his trip to Niger, and the report that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Niger, is a lie.

First, contrary to what Wilson has said publicly, his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, did recommend him for the Niger investigation:

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Confronted yesterday with the Senate report, Wilson could only offer a non sequitur and a lame denial:

Wilson stood by his assertion in an interview yesterday, saying Plame was not the person who made the decision to send him. Of her memo, he said: "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me."

Further, the Senate report indicates that Plame and Wilson, from the beginning, had an absurdly biased view of the subject Wilson was supposed to be investigating: "The report said Plame told committee staffers that she relayed the CIA's request to her husband, saying, 'there's this crazy report' about a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq."

As has been widely reported, Wilson conducted a half-baked investigation into the uanium report. But here is the most astonishing fact uncovered by the Senate Intelligence Committee: in his book and in countless interviews and op-ed pieces over the past year, Wilson has been lying about the contents of his own report to the CIA!:

The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because "the dates were wrong and the names were wrong."

"Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports," the Senate panel said. Wilson told the panel he may have been confused and may have "misspoken" to reporters. The documents -- purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq -- were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.

Wilson's reports to the CIA added to the evidence that Iraq may have tried to buy uranium in Niger, although officials at the State Department remained highly skeptical, the report said.

Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales. A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq."

According to the former Niger mining minister, Wilson told his CIA contacts, Iraq tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998.


So: what Wilson actually told the CIA, contrary to his own oft-repeated claims, is that he was told by the former mining minister of Niger that in 1998, Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from that country, and that Iraq's overture was renewed the following year. What Wilson reported to the CIA was exactly the same as what President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: there was evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.

Recall Wilson's famous op-ed in the New York Times, published on July 6, 2003, which ignited the whole firestorm over the famous "sixteen words" in Bush's State of the Union speech. In that op-ed, Wilson identified himself as the formerly-unnamed person who had gone to Niger to investigate rumors of a possible uranium deal between Iraq and Niger. Here are the key words in Wilson's article:

In January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa. The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

It was this flat-out lie about what Wilson learned in Niger, and what he reported to the CIA upon his return, that fueled the "sixteen words" controversy and led to the publication of Wilson's best-selling account, titled, ironically, The Politics of Truth.

One can only conclude that Joseph Wilson has perpetrated one of the most astonishing hoaxes in American history. But here is what I really don't get: didn't the administration have access to all of this information about Wilson's report? And if so, why didn't they use it when Wilson was dominating the news cycle with his lies?

Or here.

Quote

One of the supposed martyrs of the Left in the war on terror, former Ambassador and newly-minted author Joseph Wilson, lied to the public about how he got that questionable assignment to Niger, according to a Senate report:

Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address.


So Joe Wilson came back from Niger and actually confirmed the intelligence regarding uranium sales, instead of debunking it, as he claimed. Of course, that's not what Wilson has been saying since his return; he's taken every opportunity to claim that he found nothing to support claims from British intelligence, and he's said it on the Kerry campaign trail and on his own book tour. So much for "Bush Lied!" Someone lied, and now we know who.

Saint Joe may have even more trouble than just this crucial point regarding his credibility, as the Washington Post report continues:

The report turns a harsh spotlight on what Wilson has said about his role in gathering prewar intelligence, most pointedly by asserting that his wife, CIA employee Valerie Plame, recommended him. ... The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional.

The report states that a CIA official told the Senate committee that Plame "offered up" Wilson's name for the Niger trip, then on Feb. 12, 2002, sent a memo to a deputy chief in the CIA's Directorate of Operations saying her husband "has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity." The next day, the operations official cabled an overseas officer seeking concurrence with the idea of sending Wilson, the report said.

Wilson has asserted that his wife was not involved in the decision to send him to Niger. "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter," Wilson wrote in a memoir published this year. "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip."


For the moment, Wilson stands behind his denials that his wife used improper pull within the CIA to get him the Niger assignment. However, as has long been discussed, the decision to give Wilson the assigment makes sense no other way. Wilson had no particular experience in non-proliferation intelligence, and he gave no inclination that he had much interest in finding anything out for the US. Further, Wilson had been employed with a foundation that primarily had been funded by Saudis, making an assignment for counterespionage against Iraq very suspect.

The Senate Intelligence Committee also leaves open the possibility that the British (and now the French) were entirely correct about the attempted purchase, and scolds the CIA for bungling the investigation. Read the entire article. Anyone who believes that Wilson or Plame were simply innocent bystanders will be sorely disillusioned.

"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#2 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 12 July 2004 - 10:10 PM

But Bush has to be lying otherwise it means he was correct in his statements.  I mean what can the Democrats do with a guy who lied to his bosses at the CIA. What value is having liars connected to them. Oh! Wait they already do what is one more.
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#3 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 12 July 2004 - 10:28 PM

So, we have exactly the predicted WMD toxins dumped in the rivers of Iraq, refridgerated WMD organism samples, WMD development machine parts and research notes, exactly the predicted kind of trailer with exactly the predicted WMD-developing-&-making equipment for which the hydrogen-balloon excuse just makes no sense and which were disguised and easy to abandon quickly and had been hastily cleaned and sanitized and hidden despite being perfectly innocent, Iraqi army units having been given crates of "special secret weapons" with WMD-like instructions for their use, sarin gas in roadside bombs, people trying to smuggle WMDs out of Iraq for use in other countries, intelligence from other countries that has never been refuted or backed down from, and tons of processed uranium found in Iraq... but Iraq didn't have and wasn't developing weapons of mass destruction and it's all a bunch of intelligence screwups and lies. Ya gotta love liberologic.

#4 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 12:26 AM

More bulls*** from people who are relying on Republican Hill staffer spin on the report instead of actually reading it.  Here's what the report actually says on what the CIA concluded on Iraq-Africa uranium purchases and the infamous Bush speech that included them.

Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy Natoinal Security Advisor and the speech writers.  Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source.  We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue.  Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

... Later that day, the NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa."  Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.

... The ADDI told Committee staff he received the new draft on October 6, 2002 and noticed that the uranium information had "not been addressed," so he alerted the DCI.  The DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns.  On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak."  The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.


Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6th, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak.  One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded.  The other mine city by the source is under the control of the French authorities.  (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory.  And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British."


Oh, and one other thing.  Page 44 of the report.   Wilson reports that "an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998 [but that] no contract was ever signed with Iran."  

Iran, not Iraq.  But hey, it's only one letter, right?  No big deal.


Idiots.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#5 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 06:54 AM

MuseZack, on Jul 13 2004, 12:24 AM, said:

Oh, and one other thing.  Page 44 of the report.   Wilson reports that "an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998 [but that] no contract was ever signed with Iran."  

Iran, not Iraq.  But hey, it's only one letter, right?  No big deal.


Idiots.
Yeah, that was a stupid mistake. Because if you look, the report actually shows that Iraq tried to buy 500 tons in 1999, not 400 in 1998.

Idiots.   :cool:
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#6 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 09:01 AM

Drew, on Jul 13 2004, 11:52 AM, said:

MuseZack, on Jul 13 2004, 12:24 AM, said:

Oh, and one other thing.  Page 44 of the report.   Wilson reports that "an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998 [but that] no contract was ever signed with Iran."  

Iran, not Iraq.  But hey, it's only one letter, right?  No big deal.


Idiots.
Yeah, that was a stupid mistake. Because if you look, the report actually shows that Iraq tried to buy 500 tons in 1999, not 400 in 1998.

Idiots.   :cool:
The report says no such thing. The only source for the 1999 claims were the Italian documents which turned out to be crude forgeries.  Otherwise, it's your bloggers going off of Sue Schmidt's Washington Post story that confuses Iran with Iraq.   And as the CIA pointed out elsewhere, Iraq already had over 550 tons of legally imported yellowcake uranium in the country (that was the stuff you were hyperventilating about being removed a couple of weeks ago).  

What they didn't have is any way to reprocess it into weapons grade material, which is yet another reason why the story never made any sense.

One more time, from the IAEA:

The Independent has learnt that the Butler committee has sent separate letters requesting information from Mr Blix, the chief UN arms inspector, and Mr ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Mr ElBaradei has stated publicly that, contrary to government claims: "There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990."

http://news.independ...sp?story=540446

Edited by MuseZack, 13 July 2004 - 09:14 AM.

"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#7 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 09:49 AM

MuseZack, on Jul 13 2004, 07:59 AM, said:

And as the CIA pointed out elsewhere, Iraq already had over 550 tons of legally imported yellowcake uranium in the country (that was the stuff you were hyperventilating about being removed a couple of weeks ago).  

What they didn't have is any way to reprocess it into weapons grade material, which is yet another reason why the story never made any sense.

One more time, from the IAEA:

The Independent has learnt that the Butler committee has sent separate letters requesting information from Mr Blix, the chief UN arms inspector, and Mr ElBaradei, the director of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Mr ElBaradei has stated publicly that, contrary to government claims: "There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990."

http://news.independ...sp?story=540446
The US didn't ship out yellowcake uranium.... of which Sadaam had over 2 tons of in 1992 according to the IAEA. What we did ship out was over 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium....  Nothing that I read in the news reports indicated anything about any yellowcake except as past history.

As far as reprocessing it.... Sadaam did have banned dual-use aluminum centrifuges that could easily be used to enrich the uranium.   How do you account for him having converted yellowcake into low-enriched?

Corwin
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#8 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 11:11 AM

MuseZack, on Jul 13 2004, 08:59 AM, said:

The report says no such thing.
I'll find the page number for you in a bit. Overwhelmed here at work at the moment.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#9 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 03:33 PM

And even IF he did lie (which seems to be in some dispute vis a vis Musezack and Drew) it doesn't change the fact that Karl Rove committed an act of treason by Outing Plame to the press as a CIA operative.......

A sin for which I hope he hangs.
"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#10 Corwin

Corwin

    fortitudo ac honor

  • Islander
  • 1,695 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 03:47 PM

I really wish you'd stop giving out erroneous information.....   Whoever released the information has yet to be caught officially... If they had, there would be charges filed, and a media feeding frenzy that would make Abu Graib look about as important as a kindergarted class on recess in comparison.....

I have yet to see any Official report from anyone in the government that says Karl Rove released that information.  If you have proof otherwise, please post it.. preferably from either the Congressional panel investigating this, or the DoJ.


Corwin
"The Enemy is upon us, so Lock and Load, Brothers.  The Emperor Calls and the Forces of Chaos must be driven back.  Though all of us will fall, none of us shall fail!"

#11 Delvo

Delvo
  • Islander
  • 9,273 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 04:36 PM

Wilson & Plame probably made it public knowledge themselves when they, including she, were campaigning and pushing to have him appointed to "investigate" the uranium situation for the purpose of misrepresenting it.

#12 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 04:46 PM

MuseZack, on Jul 12 2004, 10:24 PM, said:

More bulls*** from people who are relying on Republican Hill staffer spin on the report instead of actually reading it.  Here's what the report actually says on what the CIA concluded on Iraq-Africa uranium purchases and the infamous Bush speech that included them.

Based on the analyst's comments, the ADDI drafted a memo for the NSC outlining the facts that the CIA believed needed to be changed, and faxed it to the Deputy Natoinal Security Advisor and the speech writers.  Referring to the sentence on uranium from Africa the CIA said, "remove the sentence because the amount is in dispute and it is debatable whether it can be acquired from the source.  We told Congress that the Brits have exaggerated this issue.  Finally, the Iraqis already have 550 metric tons of uranium oxide in their inventory."

... Later that day, the NSC staff prepared draft seven of the Cincinnati speech which contained the line, "and the regime has been caught attempting to purchase substantial amounts of uranium oxide from sources in Africa."  Draft seven was sent to CIA for coordination.

... The ADDI told Committee staff he received the new draft on October 6, 2002 and noticed that the uranium information had "not been addressed," so he alerted the DCI.  The DCI called the Deputy National Security Advisor directly to outline the CIA's concerns.  On July 16, 2003, the DCI testified before the SSCI that he told the Deputy National Security Advisor that the "President should not be a fact witness on this issue," because his analysts had told him the "reporting was weak."  The NSC then removed the uranium reference from the draft of the speech.


Although the NSC had already removed the uranium reference from the speech, later on October 6th, 2002 the CIA sent a second fax to the White House which said, "more on why we recommend removing the sentence about procuring uranium oxide from Africa: Three points (1) The evidence is weak.  One of the two mines cited by the source as the location of the uranium oxide is flooded.  The other mine city by the source is under the control of the French authorities.  (2) The procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory.  And (3) we have shared points one and two with Congress, telling them that the Africa story is overblown and telling them this is one of the two issues where we differed with the British."


Oh, and one other thing.  Page 44 of the report.   Wilson reports that "an Iranian delegation was interested in purchasing 400 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1998 [but that] no contract was ever signed with Iran."  

Iran, not Iraq.  But hey, it's only one letter, right?  No big deal.


Idiots.
So... Um, nothing has changed? Looks like poor Joseph Wilson fell on his sword for nothing.

How long is it until November 2 again? :look:
Per aspera ad astra

#13 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 05:14 PM

If Bush didn't lie about this or the other, he lied about something.

That's been the mantra since campaign 2000.

It was the mantra for all of 2001, 2002, 2003, and it obviously hasn't changed this year.

What's so ridiculous is that the Democrats consider lying in a president the highest calling, the greatest leadership possible. So by their own statements, the Democrat should consider Bush the greatest president we ever had, and ever will have.

-Ogami

#14 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 05:18 PM

Quote

Whoever released the information has yet to be caught officially... If they had, there would be charges filed, and a media feeding frenzy that would make Abu Graib look about as important as a kindergarted class on recess in comparison.....

Yes it would, except the administration is refusing to investigate it - while simultaneously trying to block the congressional investigation into it, for which Bush had to hire a private lawyer to represent him - and as to where it came from? Bob Woodward states quite clearly it was a member of the adminstration in his book. Strange huh?

Unless, of course, he's a vicious Democrat partisan liar as well.....

Quote

I really wish you'd stop giving out erroneous information

Please cite examples of previous erroneous information.

Edited by Gefiltefishmon, 13 July 2004 - 05:19 PM.

"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#15 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 05:22 PM

Ogami, on Jul 13 2004, 03:12 PM, said:

If Bush didn't lie about this or the other, he lied about something.
But he did lie in his State of The Union speech. Or at the very, very least, his  Deputy National Security Advisor and his speech writers set him up to look like a liar, and he repeated the things they wrote without knowing any different.

Neither option makes Bush look very good.

#16 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 05:22 PM

Quote

Wilson & Plame probably made it public knowledge themselves when they, including she, were campaigning and pushing to have him appointed to "investigate" the uranium situation for the purpose of misrepresenting it.

Delvo, Why is such a preplanned conspiracy so acceptable from Democrats but inconceivable from Republicans? If You think they could have been planning it as far back as then (for whatever reson) why can you not accept the possibility that there may be just as many and nefarious republican plots?

You don't honestly believe one side is morally superior to the other do you?
"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#17 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 05:41 PM

Gefiltefishmon, on Jul 13 2004, 05:20 PM, said:

You don't honestly believe one side is morally superior to the other do you?
(I do.)
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#18 Gefiltefishmon

Gefiltefishmon

    Oolong Caluphids Private Secretary

  • Islander
  • 789 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 05:53 PM

Quote

Quote

(Gefiltefishmon @ Jul 13 2004, 05:20 PM)
You don't honestly believe one side is morally superior to the other do you?
  


(I do.)

I'm intrigued. You've piqued my curiosity!

If Jesus said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" How are Republicans morally superior to Democrats? Keep in mind that in order to truly be morally superior they must be; beyond reproach, demonstrate unassailable integrity and total honesty and BE TRULY without sin. They must love their neighbors, turn the other cheek and practice what they preach.

At least, IMHO, they would need to be in order to be "Morally Superior".

Since they do NOT (and neither do the Democrats) How can they POSSIBLY be "Morally Superior"?
"To know that you do not know is the best. To act from the pretense that you know when you do not know is a disease" - Lao Tzu

"From All, One; and From One, All" - Heraclitus

"Let me be clear: however the world's goblet turns there will always be those drunk on the wine of the Self" - Ghalib

"A 'politically savvy challenge to evolution' is as self-evidently ridiculous as an agriculturally savvy challenge to euclidean geometry would be." - Charles Pierce

#19 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 05:54 PM

Kevin Street wrote:

But he did lie in his State of The Union speech. Or at the very, very least, his Deputy National Security Advisor and his speech writers set him up to look like a liar, and he repeated the things they wrote without knowing any different.

I presume you're referring to the 2003 State of the Union Address, where Bush stated very clearly without any deception:

Quote

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

http://www.whitehous...0030128-19.html

Care to point me to Bush's lie? John Kerry would certainly like to have your answer, Kevin, this would make a stellar campaign ad if so.

-Ogami

Edited by Ogami, 13 July 2004 - 05:55 PM.


#20 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 13 July 2004 - 06:02 PM

Check out Zack's earlier posts, here and here. The evidence for this uranium thing was thought to be very weak, so weak that the CIA repeatedly asked the White House not to mention it in the speech, and at least some of the claims were based on forged documentents. Ie, disinformation.

Oh, and as for one side being morally superior to the other. Imo (and I believe this very strongly), philisophical and political positions and organizations are not themselves moral or immoral. People act in moral or immoral ways based on what they do. (Or for another example, Mein Kampf and the Bible are just bound paper objects. But what people do after reading them is what matters.) So it's nonsensical to say that one party has a moral advantage over the other. If we must judge - judge what the people do, not who or what they are.

Edited by Kevin Street, 13 July 2004 - 06:09 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Valerie Plame Leak case, Joe Wilson, Niger Yellow Cake, 2004

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users