And who claimed that Saddam did by uranium from Niger Kel? Nobody but liberals.

This is the crux of the matter. Please recite to us the 16 words in the SOTU that liberals seem to fail in Reading Comprehension… We’ll wait for you to get back with us on those 16 words…

Get your facts straight:

Plame’s Input Is Cited on Niger Mission
Report Disputes Wilson’s Claims on Trip, Wife’s Role

Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly.

Wilson last year launched a public firestorm with his accusations that the administration had manipulated intelligence to build a case for war. He has said that his trip to Niger should have laid to rest any notion that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings were ignored by the White House.

Wilson’s assertions — both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information — were undermined yesterday 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.

Yesterday’s report said that whether Iraq sought to buy lightly enriched “yellowcake” uranium from Niger is one of the few bits of prewar intelligence that remains an open question. Much of the rest of the intelligence suggesting a buildup of weapons of mass destruction was unfounded, the report said.

“And you are wrong when you say British intelligence continue to back up Bush’s 16 words in the SOTU.”

No I’m not. They still stand by it to this day.

“They most certainly do not. You should have read my blog more thoroughly on your visit. You would have found this:”

Um, I don’t know where you got the impression that I visited your blog, but I didn’t. Even if I had the time to, I wouldn’t have. I don’t really care to.

“So, I’m afraid you are wrong. Do visit again. Educating Edited. Insult. –ST is considered a public duty.”

1) I didn’t visit a first time and 2) the only thing you’ve “educated” people on here is how you don’t know what in the world you are talking about.

And you are wrong when you say British intelligence continue to back up Bush’s 16 words in the SOTU.

They most certainly do not. You should have read my blog more thoroughly on your visit. You would have found this:

The Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair’s role in promoting the story.

“http://the-osterley-times.blogspot.com
/2006/04/theres-liar-in-white-house.html”

So, I’m afraid you are wrong. Do visit again. Educating Edited. Insult. –ST is considered a public duty.

Great post ST.

Corrections to false allegations don’t matter to lefties I see from the above post at 1:59. The whole matter revolves around Wilson’s false allegations that were trying to be corrected by the White House. I guess the press is simply able to freely make false allegations and there is no recourse for it. Libby isn’t even charged with what lefties think he is charged with but yet the above poster goes on as if it’s so. According to Victoria Toensing the law hasn’t been broken with respect to Plame.

This is a serious miscalculation by the press and they can’t jump off the wagon now in an election year. They needed to apologize and make corrections last year and are too far gone to do so now. There will be no corrections and lefties will continue to be at war with Bush and blast conservatives even though Bush isn’t even conservative and Bush’s 16 words in the State of the Unions speech remain true because British Intelligence has repeatedly backed up the claim.

Sorry Kel. Pick a new topic to be wrong on and visit again.

Surely the most important part of this is that Libby was leaking things, on Cheney’s instructions, that he knew not to be true.

And, if this information had indeed been declassified, why did Libby insist on speaking under anonymity?

And did Cheney and Bush tell Fitzgerald that the document had been declassified when he interviewed them?

And do you support the release of the transcripts of the Bush and Cheney interviews with Fitzgerald so we can establish once and for all whether or they have changed their story?