But please – don’t let me stop your nonsensical, grade school tantrum.

Yammer – I realize it’s probably beyond your comprehension to understand liking the personality and not the policy, but at least have the decentecy to qualify your crass rubbish with the fact that you hate anybody who dares to criticize your right wing heroes.

Just for that – I hate Bush too.

So there.

Naaa.

Oh yeah, like we know just how much the commentor doesn’t hate Bush. Right. Bush’s intellect has been consistently attacked beginning with his first run for governor in Texas. Always content to be underestimated Bush has never lost a race. Like Rocky Marciano, Bush junior will retire from the executive office field undefeated.

Kerry was offered up as Bush’s superior in the brains department when they ran against each other yet Bush had slightly BETTER grades at the same school. That must be why Kerry wouldn’t release his grades until AFTER the race. Odd how these things work.

Cheney, however, is pure evil.

Cheney is about as evil as the Rotary Club, as malevolent as the Chamber of Commerce. But once folks start fixating … HE IS SATAN INCARNATE I TELL YOU!!!

The Plame affair was about targeting Bush’s administration for what would have been a technicality – outing Valerie Plame. The problem you see is that it turns out that IF some laws HAVE been broken, the transgressions were committed by people OUTSIDE the Bush administration. Whoa – all of a sudden it’s not news anymore – it gets relegated to obligatory coverage – if you’re MSM, only when ya absolutely gotta.

It didn’t ‘need’ to be Cheney – it most likely was, and there’s more than a bit of evidence for that too grackle – but, for another day….

See, here’s what I DON’T get: Just for the sake of argument – what if it WAS Cheney? It’s Cheney’s JOB to make such requests, fer gosh sakes. Why is it always necessary to reiterate the obvious?

Readers, consider this: Bush mentions a bit of BRITISH intelligence in a speech. Afterwards some in the media question that it happened as the BRITISH claimed. Someone in the Whitehouse says hey, that’s a good point, let’s try to find out for ourselves, let’s ask the CIA to check it out. For the life of me I can’t figure out what the Bush haters find so ominous about these events. But when you are fixated very strongly … IT’S A PLOT! A NEOCON PLOT
I TELL YOU!!!

Why is it so important to them that knowledge of the yellowcake purchase attempt be discredited? Because if Saddam tried to purchase yellowcake it’s another proof that Saddam was up to no good, WMD-wise, during all that time, 13 years it was, that he played the UN like a harp while he was simultaneously mooning it. If you’re not trying to go nuclear, you don’t need yellowcake.
 

I think your basically drumbing up a conspiracy theory about Wilson and Bush ‘haters’, but I’m done.

I’ve tried to hate Bush and I can’t – he’s not the cleverest, but I don’t see him as ‘bad’ man.

Cheney, however, is pure evil.

Gotta say….

Nor would there necessarily be evidence if he HAD – but in actual fact the British intelligence report referred to ATTEMPTS and never claimed to have evidence of actual purchases. Let’s go back to the State of the Union speech and Bush’s actual words:

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

This is what the AH frequently offer as proof that Bush “lied.” Every word, of course, is TRUE. Black is white – up is down in AHland.

Some further thoughts:

I used to wonder why the Administration-Haters(AH) always wrongly claimed it to be Cheney that had made the request; who would make the same wrong assertion over and over. Why was Cheney so important to the alleged misdoing in the Plame affair? But then I realized OF COURSE it needed to be Cheney. Among the AH Cheney is literally the devil personified so having Cheney be the requestor gave the story an AHs-type symmetry and force that is almost irresistible to them.

Likewise their hatred of Rove, who almost co-rules with Cheney in the AH Hell. They all very much wanted and needed it to be Rove who leaked Plame’s “cover.” But we now know that NO ONE in the administration outed Plame.

A puzzling fact was unearthed during the course of this affair: Wilson apparently knew of the contents of the forged documents. Wilson, who had never been given access to the forged documents and who is not terribly careful in his public utterings, let it slip out. IF he had anything to do with the document and he’s not been very, very careful he could one day find himself in the docket.

The final round could be the Libby trial – which I don’t think will occur but kind of wish it would. The pleasure of watching a clever lawyer cross-examine Wilson under oath would almost be worth it.

So, ya gotta watch out for those myths, man. Some myths leave a crater a quarter mile across.
 

I could be wrong, but I don’t think we’d be talking only about Wilson on that one…

The Post article claims,

” Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has “not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa.”

The foreign agency, I believe, was Italian. And as I posted above, the documents were examined by the IAEA and determined to be fake.

But the “panel has not published an assessment to clarify or correct it’s position”.

Which begs the question – What exactly did the panel come up with that several intelligence officals(Bush boys I’d bet)claim ‘undermine’ Wilson’s rubbishing of the Niger claim”?

Sounds like the Post is trying to smear Wilson, who “provided misleading information to The Washington Post last June. He said then that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on documents that had clearly been forged because “the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.”

I can guess the editors of the Post, not surprisingly considering the pressure all MSM were under after the fallout from the missing WMD, tried to pass their failings on to Wilson.

Or maybe you have something else for me?

‘Cause I don’t see how this changes the fact that there is still, to this day, zero evidence of Saddam purchasing uranium in Niger….

Further – it was not Wilson alone who disputed the Niger myth either.

Really? Well, that’s NOT what the Washington Post said. The Post thought that the Senate Intelligence report on Wilson’s debriefing to the CIA (contrary to what Wilson claimed) actually “bolstered” the belief that an attempt by Iraq to buy yellowcake DID occur – and says flat out that the Senate report indicated no CIA warning concerning the veracity of the BRITISH intelligence finding mentioned by the President in his speech ever occurred. Here’s the relevant quotes along with a link to the entire article:

“Wilson’s assertions — both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information — were undermined yesterday[July 9th, 2004] in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

The panel found that Wilson’s report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson’s assertions and even the government’s previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html

Some “myth,” huh?