Posting his accusers own damning words on an Internet web site = Partisan Politics

Uh, that “Internet web site” would be the official White House web site. And the “damning words” are, in many cases, carefully snipped to make them a little more damning than they actually are.

A point of minor significance, I know.

Posting his accusers’ own damning words on an Internet web site = Partisan Politics [back of hand pressed to forehead, handkerchief dabbing teary eyes]

Can the Copperheads sink any lower?

“There s some kind of violation going on here.” Amen to that.

From page 126 of the same report:

It is clear from the CIA’s finished intelligence that the procurement of aluminum tubes and other dual use equipment was key to the CIA shifting its position on reconstitution of Iraq’s nuclear program. The CIA wrote in January 2002, that “Procurement activities detected in the past year are consistent with Iraq attempting to jump-start a clandestine uranium enrichment program to produce fissile material needed to make a nuclear weapon, potentially by late this decade:” (SPWR011102-02) On March 12, 2002, the CIA published a Senior Executive Memorandum which assessed that “Iraq currently may be trying to reconstitute its gas centrifuge enrichment program” and on the same day the CIA said “Iraq could develop enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon by mid-to-late decade.” (SPWR0312020-07) In August 2002, the CIA published a paper titled Iraq: Expanding WMD Capabilities Pose Growing Threat in which it assessed that “Iraq’s procurement of nuclear-related equipment and materials indicates it has begun reconstituting its uranium enrichment gas centrifuge program to produce fissile material for a nuclear device, a process that could be completed by late this decade.” The same paper later noted, “Iraq’s persistent interest in high-strength aluminum tubes indicates Baghdad has renewed an indigenous centrifuge uranium enrichment program.” The CIA’s nuclear analysts also told Committee staff that the aluminum tube procurement was the principal part of the agency’s assessment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.

Try again.

And Jay, please turn to page 94 of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, there you will find this passage:

 A September 13,2002 New York Times article which discussed the IC debate about the aluminum tubes, noted that an administration official said,  . . .the best technical experts and nuclear scientists at laboratories like Oak Ridge supported the CIA assessments. The contractors told Committee staff, however, that before September 16,2002, they had not seen any of the intelligence data on the Iraqi tubes. DOE officials, including the Director of the Oak Ridge Field Intelligence Element, told Committee staff that the vast majority of scientists and nuclear experts at the DOE and the National Labs did not agree with the CIA S analysis.

Would you care to characterize what kind of behavior this passage documents? I say bald face lie to a complicit media whotre (Judith Miller wrote the article). Rebuttal?

On second thought, this would end a whole lot of Ted Kennedy bloviation, so carry on.

Of course, frameone, without even knowing what he’s laughing at, thinks it’s funny.

See you at the Pajamas Media launch party, eh, Oliver?

trying to tell their side of the story that the Washington Post ignores

Which they did, in this case, by changing the subject.

The WaPo article points out that there hasn’t been an investigation into how the Bush administration used pre-war intel to convince us all that war was the only choice.

The press release rebuts that by answering a different question entirely. It claims that all those reports show that the administration didn’t force intelligence agencies to alter their intel data.

Not the same thing at all.

My earlier comment made no aspiriations to answer what you’ve asked. All I was saying was the White House press release denied something that was not charged in the WaPo article.

You, unlike the White House press office, want to discuss the substance of the WaPo article. My only purpose was to point out their reluctance to do so.

An investigation into what? Congress had access to the same intelligence. President Bush did not look at the raw data. That’s why we have intelligence experts. They put it all together. He saw it and Congress saw it.

The accusations are simple Quaker. They have been accusing the administration of putting together “misleading” intelligence or that they “manipulated” it.

If the intelligence agencies who put together this intelligence have said over and over again that they were not pressured or told to alter data, then the data presented to both the President and Congress is what was used.

Where is the evidence that they misled people and where is the evidence that the intel was manipulated? And don’t give me a half-assed, “Well that’s what an investigation would prove” response. There has to be some evidence to trigger an investigation, not just the inane ramblings of a few left wing politicians.

A press release from the White House about position on any subject- whether it is exposing and rebutting statements from the bloviator general TK or trying to tell their side of the story that the Washington Post ignores, as you well know, is a perfectly legit use of the White House web site. All White House press releases can be found there.

It’s only partisan to you, because you don’t agree. Now if the president was using the site to raise money for Reblican candidates, then there would be a concern.

But keep banging that shallow drum as hard as you can. It’s sound is just past it’s peak, and it is beginning to wear out. It’ll have a mushy, worn out tone to it when you’ll need it most- about half a year from now.

Dugger (Feel free to use that wonderful metaphor)