Patterico's Pontifications

Link

AF (c319c8) — 4/5/2007 @ 9:05 am

Biased and Senile.

Curtiss (c03bd7) — 4/5/2007 @ 9:10 am

Reporter: Did Iraq attempt to buy uranium from Niger?

Joe Wilson: There was no deal! There’s no evidence that Iraq ever bought uranium from Niger.

Reporter:

Unfortunately, we’ve seen that play out a dozen times.

Brian O'Connell (857bc8) — 4/5/2007 @ 9:26 am

Jeez, is Schorr still working? He’s, what, 135 years old and further left than Lenin?

Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 4/5/2007 @ 9:46 am

I actually wrote Schorr at NPR challenging him on the Plame case and copied their ombudsman. I never heard from either one.

Open Letter to Daniel Schorr

Chad (719bfa) — 4/5/2007 @ 10:00 am

NPR has alot of problems with the democratic party and working with CIA. Chayes is a perfect example of how NPR works. Kennedys, PC, Green Berets and people claiming to be Afghani in the middle of a war.

TFairf (3d0ee5) — 4/5/2007 @ 10:45 am

Probably both. Well, the latter could give the appearance of the former, but if so he’s been senile for a long time.

htom (412a17) — 4/5/2007 @ 10:52 am

Next thing you know, the media will stop reporting on Saddam’s nuclear facility aluminium tubes and mobile bioweapons labs. Not to mention how safe Shorjah Market is, as long as you wear Kevlar and bring a company of armed soldiers, sharpshooters, and attack helicopters. Aaah, the bias! It’s like, the Emperor turns out to still be wearing just one old sock, and that’s what you have deluded yourselves into thinking is the point of the fable. (Just for the record, the evidence in favor of Saddam even having sought yellowcake that he couldn’t do anything with if he got it is pathetic: one ambiguous remark.)

Andrew J. Lazarus (0189ff) — 4/5/2007 @ 11:27 am

You’re in pretty desperate straits if your defense of Bush’s war comes down to the difference between “bought” and “sought.” Let’s see if that one flies when your teenager gets busted for drugs. (“Honest, pops! I didn’t buy crack, I only tried to buy crack.”)

Daniel Schorr’s analysis cuts through the minutiae and gets to the heart of the matter: Was Bush conned by an obvious forgery or did he use that forgery to con the rest of the nation? That’s the fundamental question here, regardless of whether uranium was bought, sought, or otherwise got.

You didn’t offer any link to Schorr’s analysis, doubtless by some accidental oversight, but I’ll correct that error and offer the link here: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=9359789

Enjoy!

Oregonian (e94035) — 4/5/2007 @ 12:38 pm

Next thing you know, the media will stop reporting on Saddam’s nuclear facility aluminum tubes and mobile bioweapons labs. Not to mention how safe Shorjah Market is, as long as you wear Kevlar and bring a company of armed soldiers, sharpshooters, and attack helicopters. Aaah, the bias! It’s like, the Emperor turns out to still be wearing just one old sock, and that’s what you have deluded yourselves into thinking is the point of the fable. (Just for the record, the evidence in favor of Saddam even having sought yellowcake that he couldn’t do anything with if he got it is pathetic: one ambiguous remark.)

Andrew J. Lazarus (0189ff) — 4/5/2007 @ 12:40 pm

Considering the HUGE difference it makes, I fail to see why you, a “scientist”, have an issue with our desire that if you want to bitch about something, make sure it’s something that actually happened…

And the “obvious forgery” apparently fooled the british too (who still stand by the idea that the attempt to obtain was made)

As for you idiotic analogy of “Let’s see if that one flies when your teenager gets busted for drugs. ”Honest, pops! I didn’t buy crack, I only tried to buy crack.”“, you actually illustrate the point we are making.

Failing to obtain, after at least some effort, doesn’t make you innocent. If my kid tried to buy drugs he’d get the same ass-whiping whether or not he actually did purchase the drugs.

You seem hung up on “forgery”, when there is absolutely NO indication that the report that Iraq attempted to obtain materials useful in creating naughty things is/was false.

Scott Jacobs (90eabe) — 4/5/2007 @ 1:06 pm

You know I have a litle problem with the “conned by an obvious forgery” comment.

It is my understanding that in the intelligence world the clients get the product of the intelligence community. They do not normally see the raw material.

Has anyone ever claimed that the administration saw the forgery.

davod (edeb6d) — 4/5/2007 @ 1:32 pm

And let’s not forget that Wilson told the CIA it was all likely true, then lied about it to the NY Times. So who was “taken in”?

Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 4/5/2007 @ 1:43 pm

Oregonian,

You are in pretty desperate straits when you come on here and declare irrelevant the difference between 1) President Bush telling the truth and 2) President Bush having been wrong.

I notice you failed in your comment to include any links to the Butler report. But Beldar’s post corrects your error. He also has links to Schorr’s nonsense too. It’s all right there.

Patterico (a121b2) — 4/5/2007 @ 1:57 pm

Scott,

Interesting how the scientist doesn’t care about the truth.

I love how the media can tell any lie they like about the war, and if you point it out, you’re defending the war. They can tell any lie they like about the U.S. Attorney scandal, and if you point it out, you’re defending the Administration.

I can only conclude that people like that don’t give a crap about the truth. They are interested in cheap debating points.

Kevin Drum commenters, in other words.

Patterico (048cef) — 4/5/2007 @ 2:01 pm

Oregonian strikes me as the kind of person who doesn’t even care that Hitler slaughtered 600 million Jews.

Patterico (146ddb) — 4/5/2007 @ 2:06 pm

I hate to sound like I’m putting someone ahead of others, but Oregonian has to simply be the worst troll you’ve ever gotten Pat 🙁

Bet a dime to a dollar he’s a climate porn junkie too.

Lord Nazh (8c1616) — 4/5/2007 @ 2:18 pm

I just want to see if Oregonian or anyone else takes issue with any of the facts stated in my previous comment. I’d sure hate to see them defending Hitler!

Patterico (b0506d) — 4/5/2007 @ 3:13 pm

Oregonian demonstrates that we, culturally, have traversed too far into the Nanny State. In an earlier time, he would have failed to survive adolescence, since his stupidity would have been fatal.

Another Drew (8018ee) — 4/5/2007 @ 3:48 pm

I’ll keep posting this. it’s at the top of the page but I’ll do it a third time:

Two important facts regarding the British and U.S. Governments’ uranium allegations have not been adequately brought to light by any U.S. Congressional investigations or media reports to date.
(a) The British Government’s uranium from Africa (Niger) claim was always based on intelligence which alleged that uranium had been bought. However, the British Government changed the wording of the claim to “sought” in September 2002 – likely to avoid direct linkage with the forged Niger documents that claimed that Iraq had bought uranium from Niger. After the alteration of the wording, the Blair administration conducted a years-long fraudulent masquerade in which they continued to insist that their claim was based on intel that only alleged uranium had been “sought”, that the intel was not about a uranium purchase and that it was not linked to the Niger forgeries.

(b) The U.S. Government’s uranium from Africa (Niger) claim was also based on intelligence which alleged that uranium had been bought. However, the U.S. Government changed the wording of the claim to “sought” over a period of several months in early-to-mid 2002 to downplay the intel owing to its obvious dubiousness (its origins from the nonsense in the Niger forgeries). Despite this, the Bush administration pushed a fraudulent revisionist story in 2003 and beyond, namely, that the original intel only alleged that uranium had been “sought”. This was done partly to paint former Ambassador Joseph Wilson in negative light (by claiming that Wilson’s trip supported the Bush administration’s claim) and partly to distance themselves from the claims in the Niger forgeries.

Why This Matters: The wording of the uranium claim is very important because it was used as a semantic weapon by the Bush and Blair administrations to repeatedly deceive the public – in order to prevent wider recognition of the one-to-one link between their uranium allegations and the forged Niger documents. The “sought” wording was also a strategic weapon for the White House because it allowed the Bush administration to insert Joseph Wilson’s trip into the mix and falsely assert that Wilson’s trip provided proof for their claim that Iraq sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa (more on this in Sec. 4 below).

AF (c319c8) — 4/5/2007 @ 3:55 pm

Was Bush conned by an obvious forgery or did he use that forgery to con the rest of the nation?

Of course you must have instead meant Dan Rather, eh what, Oregonian?

Even Saddam Hussein believed he had or was seeking WMD’s. Otherwise why not comply with inspections?

Saddam was found to have had 500 tons of yellowcake.

So what kind of “intelligence” could possibly help you, Or.?

That’s the fundamental question here, regardless of whether uranium was bought, sought, or otherwise got.

J. Peden (898d1f) — 4/5/2007 @ 4:11 pm

AF, the third time is not an automatic charm, except within the Cultist world of your severe delusions, where perseveration is a virtue -instead of being a very suspicious sign of psychosis.

J. Peden (898d1f) — 4/5/2007 @ 4:22 pm

Investigators have learned that U.S. soldiers recently engaged in various sadistic abuses of Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.

Foo Bar (72c0d3) — 4/5/2007 @ 5:40 pm

For some reason, two attempts and this didn’t post.

Next thing you know, the media will stop reporting on Saddam’s nuclear facility aluminium tubes and mobile bioweapons labs. Not to mention how safe Shorjah Market is, as long as you wear Kevlar and bring a company of armed soldiers, sharpshooters, and attack helicopters. Aaah, the bias! It’s like, the Emperor turns out to still be wearing just one old sock, and that’s what you have deluded yourselves into thinking is the point of the fable. (Just for the record, the evidence in favor of Saddam even having sought yellowcake that he couldn’t do anything with if he got it is pathetic: one ambiguous remark.)

P.S. Yes, the letter was an obvious forgery. It took 20 minutes and Google to find out that the signing official’s name wasn’t even right. Those intelligence agencies that believed it really, really wanted to believe it.

Andrew J. Lazarus (c64d5a) — 4/5/2007 @ 5:57 pm

“Saddam had 550 tons of yellowcake, under IAEA seal and it had been that way for years.

The inspections worked.

AF (c319c8) — 4/5/2007 @ 7:43 pm

Foo –

Yeah, those inspectors caught us there. They sure are on top of things…

Wait, what? Years ago, you say?

Huh… Boy, almost makes you doubt the inspectors…

Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/5/2007 @ 7:47 pm

#14

Pat, it’s part of the reason why I’m hostile to Levi… and AF, and TLA, and most other knee-jerks…

You want to slam my president? That’s fine. I’ll shoot the invading horde that tries to stop you…

So long as you do it with facts, and not mindless idiocy and lies…

The rest of the reason i’m hostile to Levi is that fact that he’s a pompus jerk. But who’s counting? 🙂

Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/5/2007 @ 7:50 pm

Scott-

Are you saying it’s a bit of a stretch to use “recently” like I did given that the Abu Ghraib events were years ago?

Foo Bar (72c0d3) — 4/5/2007 @ 7:50 pm

You know Foo, it might be…

I guess it just depends on what your definition of “is” is…

Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/5/2007 @ 7:55 pm

Well, the key Abu Ghraib events were about 3 1/2 years ago- about the same time lag as the one between Bush’s 2003 SOTU “the British government has learned that Iraq recently sought” and the 1999 meeting between officials from Iraq and Niger that is cited to justify those 16 words.

Ah, but “more than 3 years ago, Iraq sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa” doesn’t do the trick quite as well when you’re trying to paint a picture of an active, ongoing nuclear program.

Foo Bar (72c0d3) — 4/5/2007 @ 8:03 pm

I forgot to add a link demonstrating the 3+ year gap between the meeting and Bush’s “recently sought” claim.

Foo Bar (72c0d3) — 4/5/2007 @ 8:29 pm

I dunno… I could play for a long time with 550 tons of yellowcake, and I don’t even know what the hell you DO with it…

Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/5/2007 @ 8:49 pm

“I dunno… I could play for a long time with 550 tons of yellowcake, and I don’t even know what the hell you DO with it…”

Power a Nuclear power plant maybe?
Don’t ask me to support Saddam, I’ll leave that to the US Government. They did that from the late 50’s to the first Gulf war.
He was always a scumbag, but he was our scumbag.

AF (c319c8) — 4/5/2007 @ 9:26 pm

yeah, because Saddam has so many Nuclear Power Plants…

Are you even listening to yourself when you talk? Man, Iraq didn’t even pretend to be interested in Civillian Power like Iran did (not that anyone with more than 3 brain cells ever believed Iran).

And we supported Iraq because, you moron, they were against Iran, who was HOLDING OUR PEOPLE HOSTAGE…

Jesus, it’s like I’m talking to a brick wall, only the brick wall is retarded…

Scott Jacobs (a1de9d) — 4/5/2007 @ 9:31 pm

4/5/2007

Beldar: Is Daniel Schorr Dishonest, or Just Senile?

34 Responses to “Beldar: Is Daniel Schorr Dishonest, or Just Senile?”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out