Your timeline is all wrong. See my previous post. The Niger uranium was not the major reason for going to war, this author tricked you into thinking that.
On 4/8/06, S. Isaac Dealey wrote: > Okay, I'm not going to claim that I'm great at descyphering > media/politico/legal-ese (as this appreas to have aspects of all three > enmeshed in the article), but this is what I read: > > 1. The CIA heard rumors about Iraq trying to buy uranium in Niger, > investigated and concluded the rumors were unfounded > > 2. Bush and Cheney got fixated on the rumors which the CIA had already > told them were probably unfounded > > 3. Bush and Cheney told the nation we needed to go to war with Iraq on > the basis of information the CIA had already told them was probably > bad intelligence > > 4. Bush sends Libby to hand out classified information at the same > time that people are _discussing_ declassifying the same information > (in programming, we call this a race condition) and suggests that > Libby should present the bad intelligence as being the dominant reason > for needing to go to war > > 5. Members of the CIA attempted to discredit bush for using bad > intelligence > > 6. Bush counters with "nuh-uh, the CIA lied to me" in an attempt to > cover his ass > > 7. The Plame case is brought to court. Bush backslides and says it's > okay because, although the information wasn't yet declassified when he > gave Libby instructions to diseminate it that it was in the process of > being declassified, and that his previous CYA story that it was the > best intelligence available to him was bogus, thus simultanously > keeping himself from being implicated for any malfeasance and proving > that the CIA members who previously wanted to discredit him (5 above) > were absolutely correct, but that's okay because he already covered > his ass previously when they were trying to discredit him, so the fact > that he's now proving their point is now irrelevant because? > > We're stupid and won't care that he's discrediting himself in the case > of lying about the reasons for going to war in Iraq? Because lying > about the reasons for a war which costs thousands of lives isn't > malfeasant? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:203471 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
