Edwynn
Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail On July 7, the day after Wilson's original Times article, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer took back the 16 words, calling them "incorrect:" Fleischer: Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect. And soon after, National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice acknowledged that the 16 words were, in retrospect, a mistake. She said during a July 11, 2003 White House press briefing: Rice: What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the President's speech -- but that's knowing what we know now. That same day, CIA Director George Tenet took personal responsibility for the appearance of the 16 words in Bush's speech: Tenet: These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President. Tenet said the CIA had viewed the original British intelligence reports as "inconclusive," and had "expressed reservations" to the British. Great Ron. Not a word contradicts the Senate report that I quoted. Wilson was - at best - a confabulator. At worst he was a liar. Anyone basing their opinion on him, or anything he has said either hasn't done their homework, or wishes to believe something that is false. Firm Did Joe Wilson's "lies" cost Iraq over 100,000 civilian lives and US citizens over $3 trillion? Got another Republican led report on that question, like before? Are these the same people that told you that Val Plame was not running a counter-proliferation operation for the CIA (contrary to every creditably evidenced fact)? Just curious. If you are trying to tell us that telling the bigger lie is the way to go, there is certainly some bit of history to support that.
< Message edited by Edwynn -- 1/31/2012 1:50:34 PM >
|