Quote:
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.
Quote:
|
(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.
Quote:
|
(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.
Quote:
|
(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.
