Is this the smoking gun (finally)?

[chiburb]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=2966&mesg_id=2966&page=

[molly]

1. Once the non-internet public knows

[HootieMcBoob]

2. CNN Covered it as Breaking News

But the White House Spin is that they didn't know before the SOTU address that it was bad info. C'mon! Is this George's "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" thing? I mean we know now that they admit to using bogus intel. Now we just have to get somebody to prove that they knew that it was bogus and used it anyway.

I mean who believes that this could have gotten through all the checks and double checks that are supposed to go into this sort of thing before the "president" starts spouting off in the state of the union address about reasons why we absolutely have to invade another country! This is insane! I mean I think I remember reading the freaking day after the freaking speech or not long after it anyway that the documents were freaking forged! Jesus Christ almighty! Give us a freaken break here!

[Robin Hood]

6. We have that somebody

An intelligence consultant who was present at two White House briefings where the uranium report was discussed confirmed that the President was told the intelligence was questionable and that his national security advisors urged him not to include the claim in his State of the Union address.

"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J. Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the President was in the room during at least two of the briefings."

Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said.

"He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."

On edit link:

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_2518.shtml

[HootieMcBoob]

10. Aha...just as I suspected

Then this very well could be the smoking gun or as I like to refer to it his...

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

[spotbird]

20. Rush said that Chimp only said it at the State of the Union

Not in later justifications of the war. For some reason the fact that Bush lied only once and not in subsequent speeches vindicated Shrub to Rush. Rush also said that Bush couldn't have known at the SOU that it wasn't true because (brace yourselves) Bush has too much integrity to lie to the American people.

We know their talking points, my money is that the public will buy it.

[the_sam]

21. Not just once

They tried to fool the inspectors into buying it, too.

They knowingly gave the inspectors wrong information. This is big.

[leftchick]

3. saw it covered on cnn and msrnc a few minutes ago...

the verbal gymnastics those news readers were doing to avoid the
word "lie" was truly remarkable. I don't know how long they will
be able to prop the liar in chief up.

[StopTheMorans]

4. one can only hope...

this is exactly what we've been hoping for: Evidence that Bush WILLFULLY ignored the truth and lied to make his case. If this doesn't do it for us, I don't know what will.

[RichM]

5. Naah. It should be, if there was any reason or justice, but it won't be.

Things never would have gotten to where they are today without a foundation of absolutely dedicated media corruption. They're not about to let a little bit of reality like this stand in their way.

Remember the stolen election? Enron? The 9-11 investigation? The wave of corporate scandals? The Powell speech at the UN where he used plagiarized material? The UN Security Council votes that even the US couldn't buy? Then the war itself? The Private Lynch story? ...

Why would the media give up now? They know perfectly well what they've been cooperating with, all along.

PS - note that the stock market is not down a bit, even after the absurd run-up (based mainly on hot air) yesterday. If they thought this meant trouble for Bushler, they'd be reacting to it.

[newsguyatl]

7. wolf blitzer

will be filing a report on bush's comments during the state of the union address today for his show at 5


the angle: DID THE PRESIDENT MISLEAD THE NATION ON IRAQ'S NUCLEAR AMBITIONS?

[arcane1]

8. it's official...?

the public is (gradually) learning that these devils cannot be trusted to handle foreign policy... is domestic policy far behind?

[Brotherjohn]

9. I'm skeptical until I hear the EXACT story reported elsewhere.

Many today are reporting that the WH now admits that the Niger/Iraq uranium deal, and therefore the statement in the SOTU, was false (months after we all knew it, and coincidentally a day after the man who made the initial determination for the CIA came out in the NYT). But if the stories continue to emphasize that aspect, it is no smoking gun.

On the other hand, if more media outlets start to report this adviser's story, and it has some credibility, then it may be the smoking gun. I'm skeptical, but I'll wait and see with a bit of hope.

That being said, Cheney's denials of this knowledge, coupled with his repeated visits to the CIA to gain just such knowledge, are enough of a smoking gun to me (see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=8318&mesg_id=8318&page=). Not to mention the numerous sources coming out of the intel community that this was widely known in DC, and the simple fact that you do not state something like this as evidence for war without checking it out.

[grasswire]

11. the capitolhillblue story...

...deserves its own thread. It's just dynamite!!

[Stephanie]

12. grasswire, what do we know about Capital Hill Blue?

Does it have credibility? Have they been correct in the past? I seem to recall this as a sort of odd-ball source.

[grasswire]

17. I've just been reading the freepers thread on this story...

....and they say that Capitol Hill Blue was recently sold. The original owner was named Doug Thompson, and the publication regularly participated in the trashing of Bill Clinton. So I guess we don't have a handle on the politics of the new owner.

HOWEVER, the story names Wilkinson and that's a plus. Gotta give credit when someone actually is willing to be named.

[placton]

15. Brother, I'm with you

I just jumped to the CNN site: zip there now about this story. I expect it will die, as has all else on America's rush to fascism. And, from the Moron Americans, the response will be "Who cares? What's goin' on in that California murder case?"

[blm]

13. Like Will Pitt said...

the insiders are coming out.

[Melsky]

14. Thanks for the link, I did not see the original thread

Anyone who could defend the bush administration after this is stupid, evil or both. How long until the mainstream press picks this up? I want to see it on the front page of every paper in the US!

[trof]

16. Washington Post link

http://www.msnbc.com/news/935946.asp?0na=x22035E2-
I hope I hope I hope I hope

[Brotherjohn]

18. This is a related, but different, story that is not NEARLY as damning.

As the Capitol Hill Blue one.

The Wash. Post story simply is the news of the day everywhere, but is no "smoking gun". It's the WH finally being forced to admit, belatedly, that the evidence cited in the SOTU was false. We all knew that.

It is not them admitting that THEY KNEW at the time that the evidence was false. THAT is what the Capitol Hill story alleges, using this Wilkinson guy as their source.

I think they did know it was false. It stretches what little credibility they have left to believe otherwise. But there's no proof in the Post story, or their admission today.

As much as I hate to say it, I'm starting to wonder whether "Terrance J. Wilkinson" exists and whether we can place any credibility at all in the Capitol Hill Blue story.

[Jacobin]

19. But, but but

Smirky didn't get a blow job........

Just cause he was lying to get us into a war....i mean, c'mon...will the Murkan People get upset about that??

(jeeze I hope so.)