Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Once again, our intellectually impotent neocon clown demonstrates his myopic view point:
(U) The uranium text was included only in the body of the NIE(as I just showed you), not in the key judgments section because the interagency consensus was that Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium were not key to the argument that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program.(do you understand that sentence? I think not) According to the NIO, the key judgments were drawn from a CIA paper which only highlighted the acquisition of aluminum tubes as the reason Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program. The NIO said that at the NIE coordination meeting, analysts added other reasons they believed Iraq was reconstituting, such as acquiring magnets, machine tools, and balancing machines, and reestablishing Iraq's nuclear scientists cadre.( how about this part, understand what is being said?) When someone, the NIO was not sure who [7 - eRiposte note: this may have been a DOE analyst per the footnote] suggested that the uranium information be included as another sign of reconstitution, the INR Iraq nuclear analyst spoke up and said that he did not agree with the uranium reporting and that INR would be including text indicating their disagreement in their footnote on nuclear reconstitution. The NIO said he did not recall anyone else at the coordination meeting who disagreed with the uranium text, but also did not recall anyone really supporting including the uranium issue as part of the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear program, so he suggested that the uranium information did not need to part of the key judgments. He told Committee staff he suggested that "We'll leave it in the paper for completeness. Nobody can say we didn't connect the dots. But we don't have to put that dot in the key judgments."
And notice how our dishones neocon ass kiss leaves out this little ditty:
Because INR disagreed with much of the nuclear section of the NIE, it decided to convey its alternative views in text boxes, rather than object to every point throughout the NIE. INR prepared two separate boxes, one for the key judgments section and a two page box for the body of the nuclear section, which included a sentence which stated that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious." [page 52-53]
Funny that this chuckling buffoon accuses me of something he painly demonstrates himself with virtually every post. My point has ALWAYS been that the NIE report itself stated that the information sources was questionable at best. Someone knock some sense into this asshole's, head...BELIEF WITHOUT PROOF IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INVASION AND OCCUPATION.
He keeps repeating lines of which I previously posted documented proof that OTHER AGENCIES CONTRADICTED AT THE TIME THE NIE 2002 REPORT WAS BEING FORMULATED.
No WMD manufacturing capabilities
No active stockpiles
[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=560204&postcount=56"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Yeah....I told ya so....long ago[/ame]
It's all there, all one has to do is click back and read ALL the information presented and sourced. Bravo still thinks he's a grunt following orders by just regurgitating this myopic review of his ad nauseum....well, someone clue the poor bastard in....Howdy Doody was OLD and OFF THE AIR when I was 2 years old. It would indeed take a "pinhead" to think any reference to that antique has any significance now...as it would take a "pinhead" mentality to think that just focusing on parts of a report and ignoring all else is validation.
But alas, our intellectually impotent neocon service dupe just soldiers on with the party line of insipid stubborness....so much more to pity him. "Bravo", indeed.
Last edited: