30 minutes and the CIA factbook would tell anyone that some of the Nigerian "authorities" whose names were on those documents were not in office at the time, and that there were wrong addresses and other errors revealing the papers as a 'poor forgery.'

As CIA people involved at the time will testify, the Bush administration was not accepting any information that did not support their rush to war. So the CIA probably lost its factbook on Niger.

Reread an excerpt from above:

"The report also said Wilson provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June."

We all know "misleading" is the nice way of saying "lie" in Washington-speak. But I guess that depends on what the definition of "is" is.

Geez, misleading the Post is bad...very bad. ;) How 'bout good ol' Bob Woodward? And he's one of them. RL, give up the Post angle. It's normally on the Dem's side anyway. :D

I love Woodward's books! He gets a pretty long leash from the Post.

So... misleading the Post is bad, despite insignificant consequences...

But, misleading the NYT is okay, despite garnering support for an unnecessary war?

Well, let's take the administration out of it. I don't want to use the 'two wrongs make a right' argument the neocons use.

What, exactly did Wilson supposedly 'mislead the Post' about?

Ironic that Woodward's got a role to play in the outing of Plame. What that is, is yet to come out. Another ironic thing to come out of this discussion is that you (Rick Lee) and Mul, both cite the Washington Post to make your case. The liberal media conglomerate Bush-hating Washington Post. I'm falling out of my chair laughing! You (Rick) should've heckled Cooper when you had the chance today. :D

I actually don't think the Post is all that liberal. Their staff op-eds usually are, but I find most of their investigative reporting pretty darn good.

Tech, Wilson "mislead" the Post on a few things - claiming repeatedly that Cheney sent him to Niger, Bush ignored his findings, Rove outted Plame, etc. But that's immaterial and certainly legal. However, he flat out lied to the Senate Intel. Comm. and that's what counts; at the very least it deflates any credibility he may have on other issues.

I think Oliver North was the last person prosecuted for lying to Congress, even though it wasn't a crime then, which is why his appeal was successful. For some reason, politicians aren't real vigilant about prosecuting liars. Maybe there is honor among thieves after all.

you aquitted yourself well, RL. ;)

Are there more than four possibilities when Wilson goes to Niger?

1. He lies when he says "Irag didn't get uranium."
2. He doesn't lie when he says "Iraq didn't get uranium."
3. He doesn't really find out - and assumes "Iraq didn't get uranium."
4. He does find out - and misleads everybody about it.

5. He stayed at a Holiday Inn Express

Wilson never claimed Cheney sent him to Niger. Not to the Post; not to anyone. He said Cheney's office was involved in the decision. Big difference.

That Bush ignored *all* evidence the Niger letters were false is unarguable.

That Wilson thinks Rove outed Plame? That's Wilson's assumption and it has not been disproven, has it?

So now, for the third time, please cite somewhere credible that Wilson lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee. I haven't seen any evidence yet.

Well, there's a stack of steps leading up to and following this.

1. Did Iraq *seek* uranium from Niger (when it has hundreds of tons of uranium ore in its own soil)?

There's no evidence it did. Only a 1998 letter seeking to 'expand trade.' Niger is pretty compliant with IAEA rules, so wouldn't be a good source, anyway.

2. Uranium ore is not particularly dangerous. Refined into 'yellowcake' it's still not dangerous. Enriched further, it can be weaponized.

It's unknown whether Niger even had the "400 tons" of yellowcake supposedly sought in the forged documents. But probably not.

There's a lot to read about this -- who knew the yellowcake story was fake, and when -- here: http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/

Wabbit season!!
Duck Season!!
Wabbit SEASON!!
Duck SEASON!!
WABBIT SEASON!!
DUCK SEASON!!!

So, Iraq was not seeking the uranium ore from Niger when Wilson went on his investigation ?

Scott, you'll never hear the Bush haters rebut this. But British intel. stands by this to this day. In fact, that's the source Bush cited in his famous "sixteen words" in the SOTU address. The CIA disagreed but did not object to it being the speech (I have no idea why).

Bush never said 'Niger' in the "16 words" bludgeon the left concocted to beat Bush over the head. He said 'Africa.'...Given Saddam had 500 tons of yellow-cake in Iraq, it isn't hard to believe he wanted more...The whole flap was a media blitz by the left. It was meaningless, other than being a tool to undercut Bush's crediblity...The scandal was intended to diminish Saddam as a threat and make the case that Bush was a bad guy and lied to get us into war.

We know, absolutely:
1. Saddam had WMD (where they went is in question).
2. Saddam had ready the operation to evolve and expand his WMD programs.
3. Saddam wanted to go nuclear and was developing his program.
4. Saddam had a working relationship with al qaeda and other terrorist organizations.
4. Joe Wilson lied to undermine Bush, and the media orchestrated the sham and to this day lift him up on their shoulders as credible.

I've seen no evidence that British Intel 'stands by this.' I'm happy to read any cites you might have.

There's been a lot of revisionism on this t protect the administration. And it's gotten so thin now that one 1999 Iraqi conversation with Niger about 'expanding trade' in which the subject or uranium -- in any form -- did not even come up is the basis for the invasion of a country costing uncounted lives, hundreds of billions and irreparable damage to American prestige.

Sorry, that does not meet the standard of actionable evidence.

And again, for the third time, you have failed to provide evidence of your claim that Wilson lied to the Senate Intel. Committee.

Tech, they haven't changed their analysis on this and there sure has been plenty of reason to revisit the issue. I guess I was going out on a limb by saying they still stand by it after all these years and debate, since they have not (at least publicly to my knowledge) amended their original claims (paraphrased by Bush) that Saddam was indeed seeking nuke tech. from Niger.

Self-serving assininity to think otherwise...Saddam wasn't seeking to arm nook-u-lurly?...How ridiculous an assertion; an assertion only a backstabbing Democrat crook would make.

yeah, we got your yellow cake here. chocolate too, if that's your fancy.

http://www.bettycrocker.com/images/p...supermoist.jpg

Mul, have you even read the US Senate Republican Intel. Committee report? Are you just pulling this outta your ass?