Nadine, I see you're down to just two "lies" now.
"What about his omitted finding that Iraqi agents (btw, the Iraqi official who went to Niger just so happened to be one of the highest officials in Saddam's nuclear program) had come to Niger to trade?"
Wow! What a lie. Let's see, he never said anything about that one way or the other and that's your definition of a lie? And it turned out Wilson was right...Iraq had no nuclear program, Iraq needed no yellowcake, and Iraq would have had absolutely no use for yellow cake since it had no way to enrich it....but you claim not only that he never brought it up but also that Iraq was interested in a purchase.
That's some proof of a lie, isn't it?
Or how about; "Wilson later claimed he had seen and recognized the forged documents that he was spreading hearsay about, but had to backpedal when it was pointed out to him that he could not have seen them in the dates cited. That lie he was caught out in."
The problem with that "lie" Nadine, is that Wilson writes that he has NOT seen the forged documents in the op-ed piece itself.
So good thinking, attribute a lie to a man who had said just the opposite of what you claim as a lie. Having once gone on record, why would he later "lie" and claim otherwise? A person could do that by mistake, but no one in his right mind would deliberately contradict himself when he'd already gone on record in the most famous article he'd ever written.
"You utter moron. Armitage outed her. He has confessed.
Even an utter moron should understand that it's not an either/or finding. The fact that Cheney's smear information reached Armitage and he let it slip out doesn't mean that Rove, Libby, Fleischer and others didn't also "out" her.
Only in your black and white world could you find people willing to hang their pointy little hats on an excuse so transparently feeble.
So I'd say you were full of shit about Wilson....not that any of this matters. You'll be fighting long-ago lost battles for years now using similar logic and with similar success. Ed |
