Text 71, 345 rader
Skriven 2006-01-16 22:26:00 av Bob Klahn (1:275/311)
Kommentar till en text av Earl Croasmun
Ärende: Twice more withoutfeeling
=================================
* Original: FROM..... BOB KLAHN
* Original: TO....... ALL
* Original: FORUM.... POL_INC
* Forwarded by Silver Xpress
(0:0/0)
This message was originally addressed to EARL CROASMUN
and was forwarded to you by BOB KLAHN
-----------------------------------
->> EC> You said Wilson did not make that
->> EC> charge in one specific New York Times article.
->> You cannot show he made the claim that Cheney sent him
EC> "Now, with regard to ambassador Wilson's charge that it was
EC> actually the vice president's office that ordered him to
EC> go...."
Bash repeating the administration line.
EC> I have clearly demonstrated a variety of occasions where he
EC> told people that he was sent by the Bush administration, by
EC> senior officials, by Cheney, by Cheney's office, and so on.
Nope. Not one.
You keep making that claim, but you can't find one person who
puts his name on the claim that he heard Wilson say that.
That is the sticking point on every accusation you put against
Wilson.
->> But he was quite specific over and over that the CIA sent him.
EC> I showed you that he was not, and you ignored it. I
You claimed he was not, and I showed that you do not have one
witness who claims to have heard Wilson say that.
EC> explained that CIA involvement in the trip did not exclude
EC> Cheney's involvement in the trip, as indicated in the story
Ah, the roundabout obfuscatory the CIA sent wilson just like
Wilson said but Cheney did not send Wilson which Wilson never
said but you will pretend he did even though you don't have one
single actual witness whine.
EC> Wilson told Buncombe. You ignored that as well. You are
EC> contributing nothing to the thread except ignorance.
That and Buncombe's actual words. Which you, in your desperation
keep trying to pretend, don't exist. Buncombe got his phrasing
wrong, but he corrected it in the very same article.
**************************************************************************
Diplomat who blew the whistle on falsified evidence
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
09 July 2003
When Joseph Wilson got the call from Vice-President Dick
Cheney's office asking for assistance, the former diplomat had
no qualms.
...
In February 2002, the CIA asked Mr Wilson to go to Niger as
soon as possible, speak to the contacts he developed there as
ambassador between 1976-78, and establish whether the reports
were true. "I had been asked to look into whether it was
feasible that Niger had entered into an agreement to sell
uranium to Iraq," he told The Independent on Sunday.
...
**************************************************************************
->> EC> I pointed
->> EC> out that he was at least ambiguous in that very article,
->> EC> and that he was much less ambiguous in making the claim
->> EC> prior to July 6, when he was feeding information to
->> EC> reporters on background.
->> I say Wilson did not make that claim in that article
EC> So what?
So, ambigous means nothing if he didn't make the claim.
->> I say Bash got her information from the
->> administration
EC> Half true, which is well above your average. The White
100% true.
EC> House was DENYING the charge by Wilson, and Bash reported
EC> both the charge and the White House denial.
The Whitehouse invented the charge, then denied it. That's what
we call a straw man. The Whitehouse also claimed that they knew
nothing about it, which Bash repeated, and the Libby indictment
makes clear was a lie.
->> I say Bash gave the administration line.
EC> Actually, as a reporter, she gave Wilson's line AND the
EC> administration's line.
A competent reporter would show that Wilson actually said that.
She didn't. If she wasn't parroting the administration line,
then she is a gross incompetent.
Remember, she was repeating a charge that the public had not
heard anyplace else before. She could not assume anyone else had
ever heard it before. She should have given the basis for it, if
she was competent.
->> The reality is, you can't prove Wilson ever spoke to her about
->> that
EC> You stated as a "fact" that she hadn't talked to Wilson.
I state it as my firmly held belief that Wilson never spoke to
her on that before July 6, 2003. After that I don't know. He may
well have had some well chosen words for her on that.
If he had spoken to her on that, a competent reporter would have
said so because the public would have no other basis for
recognizing that accusation. Hell, until that point the public
didn't even know about Wilson's trip to Niger.
EC> You made it up, and now you demand that I DISprove your
EC> made-up story. Prove your claim.
You chose her for your source, you show her credibility.
->> EC> Yes, she did not report his other story, but as you have
->> EC> known for some time she was aware of his other story,
->> No, I do not know she was aware of any other story.
EC> "There had been inaccurate reporting -- some of it came
EC> from Wilson`s mouth himself -- that he was dispatched by
EC> the vice president." Once again you add only ignorance and
EC> empty denial.
That was in the interview with Wilson's lawyer, where Mitchell
cited her previous interview about Wilson's book release, and
where Mitchell herself gave Wilson's story. IOW, she didn't even
remember her own history on that.
->> It is a proven fact that the administration spread that story,
->> starting July 6, 2003.
EC> Whatever it is that you are struggling to say, say it.
EC> Don't go through several weeks of having your story beaten
EC> out of you.
Uh... remember, July 6, 2003, when Wilson's op-ed came out, and
Bash recited the administration line?
EC> "That story" that "the administration" was spreading was
EC> that Cheney's office had NOT sent Wilson and that Wilson
Which no one in the world had claimed he did up to that point.
Remember, even Wilson's name was not attached to it to that
point.
EC> did NOT report anything back to Cheney. Through your
You republican edited out the part where Cheney claimed not to
have known about the whole thing, which Fitzgerald blew all to
hell in his indictment of Libby.
EC> incoherent babbling, you make it sound like "the
EC> administration" was spreading the story that Cheney HAD
EC> sent Wilson.
You're desperate whine is what is incoherent.
->> EC> having heard it "from Wilson`s mouth himself." She was
->> She never said *SHE* heard it from Wilson's mouth.
EC> She also didn't say that she fingerprinted him to ensure
EC> that it was the real Joseph Wilson. Once again you say
IOW, she didn't finger print him, and she didn't hear Wilson say
it.
EC> really dumb things and then you pretend that they are
EC> actual responses.
Desperate whine again. Like the republican horde, you try to
turn the issue to the person insead of the facts.
->> EC> Ehrenrich,
->> Ehrenrich never said one word about who sent Wilson in the only
->> column I found by him with Wilson. Someone put that in before
->> the interview
EC> Ehrenrich wrote the column, based on his interview with
EC> Wilson, including the line: "In February 2002, Vice
EC> President Dick Cheneys Office sent Joseph C. Wilson IV to
EC> Africa to investigate claims that the Iraqi government had
EC> attempted to purchase uranium in Niger."
He may have written that, or an editor may have written that.
What is absolutely clear is, that was not in the interview.
EC> The part of the
EC> interview that was printed focused on the Novak angle.
The republican originated lie was printed.
EC> Maybe you are being thrown by the fact that the questioner
EC> in the interview is referred to as "L.A. Weekly." Don't
Doesn't matter. Wilson did not say that in answer to any
question, in any part of the interview.
EC> act so confused. Ehrenrich works for the L.A. WEEKLY. He
EC> did the interview, and he is the author of the column that
EC> reported it. "Wilson was in Los Angeles last Friday and
EC> spoke to the Weeklys Ben Ehrenreich."
Actually, that is either an editor writing, or Ehrenreich really
likes the third person. Sounds like a headline editor. You do
realize they have people who compose the headlines, and the sub
headings, and those are typically not the reporters or
columnists.
->> EC> Another mindless repetition of a phrase by you. YOU stated
->> EC> as a "fact" that Bash was not one of the reporters Wilson
->> EC> talked to on background. I pointed out correctly that you
->> EC> can not possibly prove it. You can't.
->> You have to prove he *DID* speak to her on background.
EC> Once again you try to claim the right to make up any wild
EC> story, and then demand that I DISprove it. Prove your
No, I demand you prove your wild story. You ask me to prove
non-existance. I merely ask you to show it does exist.
...
->> And, up to that point, no one you have shown had published a
->> claim that the VP sent Wilson. The first recorded instance of
->> that you have shown was Bash
EC> That is an outright lie again, Bob. Kristof said Wilson
EC> was sent at the behest of Cheney's office. The New
Which he corrected in the same article. No points.
EC> Republic had Wilson confirming that his report had gone to
EC> Cheney's office.
Which is not saying Cheney sent him, the point in question, and
Wilson repeatedly stated he is convinced it did go to Cheney's
office. Since Cheney is a proven liar on this issue anyway, re:
the Libby indictment, you sure can't beleive Cheney.
EC> Ray McGovern talked with Wilson about his
EC> trip and then just a few days later was claiming in an
It was more like a week and a half later, but I won't accuse you
of making things up over that.
EC> interview that "Cheney commissioned this trip" and that "We
EC> know that it was Dick Cheney who sent the former US
EC> ambassador to Niger to investigate. We know he was told in
EC> early March of last year that the documents were
EC> forgeries." All of that and more was in the public domain
EC> before July 6, 2003.
Ah, you pull another one out of the mists of history. Your
desperation is showing.
You should really give the dates. And the source. I have several
pieces by McGovern, but had to go on the web to find that. I had
forgotten he even existed.
And no where does McGovern source one bit of that to Wilson,
directly or indirectly.
EC> And that doesn't even factor in the stories that were being
EC> told and the questions that were being asked by reporters
EC> outside of what was published.
Oh, wow! Now I have to know what they weren't even publishing.
EC> You should read the Libby
EC> indictment. Fitzgerald makes it clear that after the
EC> Kristof article Libby and others were scrambling to refute
EC> the story that Wilson was spreading.
Yeah, that Bush used false information in the State of the Union
Speech.
EC> He has Libby making a
EC> direct request for information to the State epartment on
EC> May 29, which would have been the time period when Pincus
EC> was digging for information on Wilson after the Kristof
EC> article.
Did you get to the part where Pincus calls the VP's office and
Libby gets in on how to spin... I mean on how to reply?
EC> After the New Republic article, Libby and his
EC> deputy discussed how they could "REBUT the allegations that
EC> the Vice President had sent Wilson."
Yeah, I saw that. Though I never noticed before, that is the
first instance I find of that 'allegation'. Which suggests they
were working up a straw man even then, because the "allegation"
does not appear in the New Republic article. The NR article
gives the CIA sent him story.
EC> So the story was already pretty well out there. This was
EC> all established long ago in the thread.
Wasn't established before, isn't established now.
What you have managed to show is the likelyhood that libby et
al were planning to spin it even then. They took a non-existent
allegation from the New Republic article, and tried to divert
from the real issue with a straw man.
BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn
... If the facts do not conform to the theory, they must be disposed of.
! Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn
* Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5a
* Origin: FidoTel & QWK on the Web! www.fidotel.com (1:275/311)
|