The Cellar - View Single Post - It depends on what the meaning of "name" is...

Undertoad · 10-24-2005, 08:45 AM

I'm just glad we could get to the right part of the debate. Now we have everyone (except for the Post correction, which is a non-entity IMO) agreeing that:

1. Iraqi went to Niger.

2. They wanted uranium. (It's the only meaningful export Niger has.)

3. They were turned back.

The Crooks and Liars take, which I have seen before, concludes that (and I quote) the intelligence community discounted the notion that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger; but this is Monday morning, and given the 1-2-3 facts on the table, do you come to that conclusion? Isn't it a direct contradiction to #2? Why would Crooks and Liars do that?

It gets hard to follow; but how did Wilson get those 1-2-3 facts?

4. He was a former ambassador, and highly regarded, but not an ambassador to Niger. He was ambassador to Gabon. It was 10 years ago.

5. When he went to Niger, he was told not to speak with anyone currently in the government because it could hurt further negotiations about the restrictions of yellowcake sale.

6. He was only there a week, and all he did was talk with people; they assured him that all was well and even though the Iraqis had been there, no transfer could have happened because of those restrictions.

Here are the hard questions.

Given 4-5-6, and the 1-2-3 already established, do YOU believe that Wilson could come to a very complete and total conclusion that Iraq was not seeking uranium?

When Brit intelligence comes to the conclusion that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger, does Wilson's trip negate that intelligence?

If you're Wilson, and the Pres makes his S.O.T.U. speech saying that Brit intel finds Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, do you then write to the New York Times about what you've found? Or do you wait six months until the war starts, the first invasion is over, and no stockpiles are found?

When you write to the Times, do you omit fact #2? How about #4? How about #5?

And finally, the biggest question for y'all: Is it OK that Iraq went to Niger in 1998 seeking uranium even though they were prohibited from having it? Are you copasetic with that because they did apparently get turned down? Do you think they wanted it for peaceful purposes?

10-24-2005, 08:45 AM	#3
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	I'm just glad we could get to the right part of the debate. Now we have everyone (except for the Post correction, which is a non-entity IMO) agreeing that: 1. Iraqi went to Niger. 2. They wanted uranium. (It's the only meaningful export Niger has.) 3. They were turned back. The Crooks and Liars take, which I have seen before, concludes that (and I quote) the intelligence community discounted the notion that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger; but this is Monday morning, and given the 1-2-3 facts on the table, do you come to that conclusion? Isn't it a direct contradiction to #2? Why would Crooks and Liars do that? It gets hard to follow; but how did Wilson get those 1-2-3 facts? 4. He was a former ambassador, and highly regarded, but not an ambassador to Niger. He was ambassador to Gabon. It was 10 years ago. 5. When he went to Niger, he was told not to speak with anyone currently in the government because it could hurt further negotiations about the restrictions of yellowcake sale. 6. He was only there a week, and all he did was talk with people; they assured him that all was well and even though the Iraqis had been there, no transfer could have happened because of those restrictions. Here are the hard questions. Given 4-5-6, and the 1-2-3 already established, do YOU believe that Wilson could come to a very complete and total conclusion that Iraq was not seeking uranium? When Brit intelligence comes to the conclusion that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger, does Wilson's trip negate that intelligence? If you're Wilson, and the Pres makes his S.O.T.U. speech saying that Brit intel finds Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, do you then write to the New York Times about what you've found? Or do you wait six months until the war starts, the first invasion is over, and no stockpiles are found? When you write to the Times, do you omit fact #2? How about #4? How about #5? And finally, the biggest question for y'all: Is it OK that Iraq went to Niger in 1998 seeking uranium even though they were prohibited from having it? Are you copasetic with that because they did apparently get turned down? Do you think they wanted it for peaceful purposes?