According to the article (and I've seen no rebuttals) that's the information Libby was told to give the reporter.
> 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? s. isaac dealey 434.293.6201 new epoch : isn't it time for a change? add features without fixtures with the onTap open source framework http://www.fusiontap.com http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/author/4806Dealey.htm ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:203474 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=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
