Prosecution Rests, Libby's Turn Now

No, Libby is wrong, but it is probably Cheney who is the real guilty party, Libby is just the fall guy.

 

It's good to see this Blair quote reposted. Some are still in denial about the fact that the President's 16 word statement in the State of the Union address were absolutely true.

 

The 16 words were true. Bush got the intel from Britain who got it from the Italians and Bush delivered that address in September of 2002. Nine months earlier the CIA sent Wilson to investigate the veracity of the intel. Wilson determined intel to be erroneous. The British version fit the Bush plan better than the American version so Bush went with the British version.

 

Turns out he was right to do so. The British had it right.

 

The White House admitted they were wrong about the British intelligence as it pertained to Nigeria. While sounding much like an Abbot and Costello routine the following would be funny, if it wasn't so tragic...

Q I just want to take you back to your answer before, when you said you have long acknowledged that the information on yellow cake turned out to be incorrect. If I remember right, you only acknowledged the Niger part of it as being incorrect -- I think what the --

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Q I think what the President said during his State of the Union was he --

MR. FLEISCHER: When I refer to yellow cake I refer to Niger. The question was on the context of Ambassador Wilson's mission.

Q So are you saying the President's broader reference to Africa, which included other countries that were named in the NIE, were those also incorrect?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President's statement in the State of the Union was much broader than the Niger question.

Q Is the President's statement correct?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm referring specifically to the Niger piece when I say that.

Q Do you hold that the President -- when you look at the totality of the sentence that the President uttered that day on the subject, are you confident that he was correct?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement. But specifically on the yellow cake, the yellow cake for Niger, we've acknowledged that that information did turn out to be a forgery.

Q The President's statement was accurate?

MR. FLEISCHER: We see nothing that would dissuade us from the President's broader statement.

Q Ari, that means that, indeed, you all believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation; is that correct?

MR. FLEISCHER: What the President said in his statement was that according to a British report they were trying to obtain uranium. When I answered the question it was, again, specifically about the Niger piece involving yellow cake.

Q So you believe the British report that he was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation is true?

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?

Q If you're hanging on the British report, you believe that that British report was true, you have no reason to believe --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, I see what David is asking. Let me back up on that and explain the President's statement again, or the answer to it.

The President's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake from Niger. The President made a broad statement. So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the President's broader statement, David. So, yes, the President' broader statement was based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger.

Q So it was wrong?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's what we've acknowledged with the information on --

Q The President's statement at the State of the Union was incorrect?

MR. FLEISCHER: Because it was based on the yellow cake from Niger.

Q Well, wait a minute, but the explanation we've gotten before was it was based on Niger and the other African nations that have been named in the national intelligence --

MR. FLEISCHER: But, again, the information on -- the President did not have that information prior to his giving the State of the Union.

Q Which gets to the crux of what Ambassador Wilson is now alleging -- that he provided this information to the State Department and the CIA 11 months before the State of the Union and he is amazed that it, nonetheless, made it into the State of the Union address. He believes that that information was deliberately ignored by the White House. Your response to that?

MR. FLEISCHER: And that's way, again, he's making the statement that -- he is saying that surely the Vice President must have known, or the White House must have known. And that's not the case, prior to the State of the Union.

Q He's saying that surely people at the decision-making level within the NSC would have known the information which he -- passed on to both the State Department and the CIA.

MR. FLEISCHER: And the information about the yellow cake and Niger was not specifically known prior to the State of the Union by the White House.

Q What does that say about communications?

MR. FLEISCHER: We've acknowledged that the information turned out to be bogus involving the report on the yellow cake. That is not new. You can go back. You can look it up. Dr. Rice has said it repeatedly. I've said it repeatedly. It's been said from this podium on the record, in several instances. It's been said to many of you in this room, specifically.

Q But, Ari, even if you said that the Niger thing was wrong, the next line has usually been that the President's statement was deliberately broader than Niger, it referred to all of Africa. The national intelligence estimate discusses other countries in Africa that there were attempts to purchase yellow cake from, or other sources of uranium --

MR. FLEISCHER: Let me do this, David. On your specific question I'm going to come back and post the specific answer on the broader statement on the speech.


(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/07/20030707-5.html)​

 

I believe that the presidents lack of character on the border security brings into question everything else including Iraq.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus_1611
The 16 words were true. Bush got the intel from Britain who got it from the Italians and Bush delivered that address in September of 2002. Nine months earlier the CIA sent Wilson to investigate the veracity of the intel. Wilson determined intel to be erroneous. The British version fit the Bush plan better than the American version so Bush went with the British version.

How soon our politics leads us to forget...


http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?quer...m+niger+iraq&y=5&aje=true&x=7&id=040627003035

ntelligence backs claim Iraq tried to buy uranium

By Mark Huband in Rome, FT.com site
Published: Jun 27, 2004

Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the US-led invasion, senior European intelligence officials have told the Financial Times.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.

These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

 

Please send me a link of the White House confirming the allegations of these "Senior European Intelligence officials".

 

On top of that: The British still stand by their assertion, primarily because they got it right.


http://search.ft.com/ftArticle?quer...m+niger+iraq&y=5&aje=true&x=7&id=040628000877

EXCERPT

The British government has said repeatedly it stands by intelligence it gathered and used in its controversial September 2002 dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes. It still claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

But the US intelligence community, officials and politicians, are publicly sceptical, and the public differences between the two allies on the issue have obscured the evidence that lies behind the UK claim.

Until now, the only evidence of Iraq's alleged attempts to buy uranium from Niger had turned out to be a forgery. In October 2002, documents were handed to the US embassy in Rome that appeared to be correspondence between Niger and Iraqi officials.

When the US State Department later passed the documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, they were found to be fake. US officials have subsequently distanced themselves from the entire notion that Iraq was seeking buy uranium from Niger.

However, European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.

These intelligence officials now say the forged documents appear to have been part of a "scam", and the actual intelligence showing discussion of uranium supply has been ignored.

 

The article is not proof , it is only theory and speculation

 

Carpro won't even admit that Bush is wrong when Bush says he is wrong. :BangHead:

Carpro, your a real Neocon for sure! :laugh:

 

Probably so, since you don't agree.:BangHead:

 

:laugh: :laugh: Well that was easy!

 

If I was a juror this would ring true

Mr. Fitzgerald countered that Mr. Russert’s testimony was not needed to convict Mr. Libby. “If Tim Russert were run over by a bus and had gone to the great news desk in the sky, you can still find plenty of evidence that the defendant lied,” he said.