Tenet's statement--a modest analysis

[DrBB]

So skipping down to the important bits, we get this:

And third, the President had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the President.

i.e., we’re going with the incompetence story. But then down at the end, after a lot of obfuscatory shit in between (we'll get to that), we get this:

The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.

Okay, but whose mistake was it? Funny, you never quite actually say (that's why we love the ol' passive voice, don't we George). So, was it yours? That’s what the headline says. We're looking to see you fall on your sword, George. But when it comes to how it got into the speech, here’s what you say:

Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries,

--interrupt, here: Huh? They hadn’t? Well that’s damn interesting. Because Wilson’s report came almost a year earlier. You saying CIA never got it? Text continues--

officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed.

"Was changed." Good ol' passive voice. Who changed it? Why? Text continues--

From what we know now, Agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct — i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a Presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for Presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

Well shit George, that's no good. No good at all. See, you’re just basically confirming the Gjelten report, aren’t you? As in--from TPM--

On June 19th, NPR’s Tom Gjelten added yet another piece to the puzzle. Apparently the intelligence folks even made their concerns known during the writing of the speech. “Earlier versions of the president’s speech did not cite British sources,” a senior intelligence official told Gjelten. “They were more definitive and we objected.”

At that point, according to Gjelten’s source, “White House officials” said “‘Why don’t we say the British say this?’”
http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.jhtml?prgId=2&prgDate=June/19/2003

So how is that supposed to get you--or more to the point, the Junta--off the hook? That’s just a slightly obfuscated version of the hook you’re all already on, George. How’s that feel, being impaled on a blunt hook as opposed to a sharp one, any better? (As a diabetic, I get needles that are advertised as offering “Maximum injection comfort.” Wanna try one?)

And then there’s the question of Wilson’s report, which either you or Cheney or both contracted for. Kinda hard to find that here. For some reason we don't mention him by name. But we do get this:

In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA’s counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn.

“On their own initiative.” That’s good, George, that’s very good. Keep Dick out of it. Preserve that Carlyle directorship at all costs. Only, ARE we talking about Wilson here or not?

He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger’s processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents-or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials.

Well, geez, George. Um, is that Wilson we’re talking about? Cuz if so, why not say so? I mean, it’s been a week now since the guy came out; you can use his name if you want. Or are you just keeping things nice and vague so you can retreat if you need to? And are we really supposed to believe that just because the Unnamed One doesn't MENTION forgeries, we're not supposed to, like, y'know, act like intelligence analysts 'n' stuff and go all professional about it and like, y'know, sorta decide that maybe one Niger Uranium story might just get put together with another? Always buying into this really odd supposition that nobody seems to have sent Wilson over there, he just, y'know, kinda spontaneously appeared there.

Oh gee, George is saying. Guess what? We got a report about the veracity of a nuclear threat to the United States from this guy who just, we dunno why, went to Niger to investigate it. Okay, sez us. Pretty cool. Pass the bong, will ya? Oh and then we had this other question, y’know, bout whether these documents we had alleging a nuclear threat to the United States involving, like Niger Uranium, were, you know, genuine ‘n’ stuff. And guess what? Nobody told us we should like, evaluate the latter in light of the former, ya know? Like, we’d had this really big toke and so we thought, cool man, whatever, only then it turns out that like, there were these two DOTS man, and we shoulda like, CONNECTED ‘em. But we didn’t okay? So get off our case. I mean, we do what we can do, you know? Fuck off.

Well guess what, George. Big of an asshole as you are, I just don’t really believe your competency level leaves you unqualified for a job as a gas station attendant much less head of the C-fucking-I-A, know what I mean? Oops, I'm head of the CIA but I'm too dumb to remember my own birthday, ain't that a hoot? Nope, we don't believe you guy. And what's worse, if it's true, it raises a whole bunch of other questions you don't want asked. More to the point, K-K-Karl don't wanna have those questions asked. Nor Shrump, nor Dick nor nobody except that beleagered entity called the American public. Questions about how dot-connection could still be SUCH a problem all this long time after 9/11. Nuclear terror 'n' stuff. Just can't keep track of info about that, still, huh George? That what you're admitting to?

And above all we don't want no questions about how dot-connection coulda been such a problem BEFORE 9/11. That's what you don't want asked, and that's why you're trying to head this set of questions off, isn't it. But they ALL lead back there George, these questions, ultimately. Ain't that funny? They ALL lead back there.

on edit: formatting to improve readability of long post (I hope)

[Gloria]

1. Excellent work! I doubt we'll see anything

as good by the pundits/analysts!

Loads of questions still remain unanswered.

[comradebillyboy]

2. tennant's statement raises more questions than it answers

there was a great fugs song from the late 60's, theme for the bushies now.....'river of shit'...

the song opens like this:
....'river of shit (pause) who put this river here?'

[elfling]

3. I read it as "I let him lie"

I read the statement as,

'We did not believe that the Niger report was true.'

'When pressed, we admitted that it was true that British Intelligence had such a document, which is what the speech said. The speech did not technically say it was true or that we believed it.

'In the end, we caved to White House pressure. It was my job to say no and I should've.'

[lkinsale]

14. That's exactly how I read it

I think the press and Dems will stay on it. Hope so.

[diamond14]

4. TWO pages is way too long for any gov't. brief....it's old school

to ramble on and on...TWO pages leaves way too much to be sifted through by every news agency in the world instantly via the Internet, and word-phrase-matching programs...and find every single statement that tenent and others have made way back...

so, this knee-jerk reaction (rove calls CIA in a temper tantrum, demanding that CIA fess up, followed immediately by cheney's call demanding same)...this knee-jerk reaction will definitely come back to haunt shrub....

shrub will regret this TWO page brief...it was put together under pressure, with too many phone calls blowing across the ocean from AF1...too bad that shrub and the whole cabal are in Africa and totally unable to take care of this properly....it seems to be already wildly out of control....you can't put the WMD genie back in the bottle...

[DrBB]

7. Excellent point. The longer the lie

and the more elaborate, the more the prosecutor can come back at you and say, "Ah, but earlier you said this. Are you changing your story?"

I have to wonder if Tenet is really as dumb as he's pretending to be here. Coerced into writing a confession, could he have written one that will damn the target he's supposed to be protecting? As cover stories go, it's pretty fucking feeble. Whether deliberately so or not, well, who cares? As long as, if it's deliberate, he's not mistaken that there are journalists out there who will ask all the questions it so manifestly raises.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

5. Nice BB! So will you be sending this off to Marshall too?

Good read! :thumbsup:

[papau]

6. Excellent Analysis - CIA HAS NOT CLEARED BUSH

WHY IS THE MEDIA (maybe just Fox) LYING THAT CIA HAS CLEARED BUSH? -It hasn't

the statement says "agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct, i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed."

THIS does NOT say that Bush did not know it was a lie - that Wilson had not made VP Cheney aware that it was a lie - that Condi did not know it was a lie.

It only says Bush said/released a lie that we thought was cute because we only said that the Brits had said this - so We were not really liars, were we? And our right wing whore media will all now agree that Bush is not a liar - but that guy Tenet at the CIA should go - and he will - and over 200 dead and over 1000 calualties will be justified, along with 6000 Iraqi civilan dead, because we fired Tenet.

Anazing

Text of the C.I.A. Director's Statement

Legitimate questions have arisen about how remarks on alleged Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa made it into the president's State of the Union speech. Let me be clear about several things right up front. First, CIA approved the president's State of the Union address before it was delivered. Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my agency. And third, the president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound. These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president.

For perspective, a little history is in order.

There was fragmentary intelligence gathered in late 2001 and early 2002 on the allegations of Saddam's efforts to obtain additional raw uranium from Africa, beyond the 550 metric tons already in Iraq. In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerian officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.

Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the president, vice president or other senior administration officials. We also had to consider that the former Nigerian officials knew that what they were saying would reach the U.S. government and that this might have influenced what they said.

In the fall of 2002, my deputy and I briefed hundreds of members of Congress on Iraq. We did not brief the uranium acquisition story.
Also in the fall of 2002, our British colleagues told us they were planning to publish an unclassified dossier that mentioned reports of Iraqi attempts to obtain uranium in Africa. Because we viewed the reporting on such acquisition attempts to be inconclusive, we expressed reservations about its inclusion, but our colleagues said they were confident in their reports and left it in their document.
In September and October 2002 before Senate committees, senior intelligence officials in response to questions told members of Congress that we differed with the British dossier on the reliability of the uranium reporting.

In October, the Intelligence Community (IC) produced a classified, 90-page National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq's WMD programs. There is a lengthy section in which most agencies of the intelligence community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Let me emphasize, the NIE's key judgments cited six reasons for this assessment; the African uranium issue was not one of them.

But in the interest of completeness, the report contained three paragraphs that discuss Iraq's significant 550-metric-ton uranium stockpile and how it could be diverted while under IAEA safeguard. These paragraphs also cited reports that Iraq began "vigorously trying to procure" more uranium from Niger and two other African countries, which would shorten the time Baghdad needed to produce nuclear weapons. The NIE states: "A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of pure 'uranium' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out the arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake." The Estimate also states: "We do not know the status of this arrangement." With regard to reports that Iraq had sought uranium from two other countries, the Estimate says: "We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources." Much later in the NIE text, in presenting an alternate view on another matter, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research included a sentence that states: "Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious."

An unclassified CIA white paper in October made no mention of the issue, again because it was not fundamental to the judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program, and because we had questions about some of the reporting. For the same reasons, the subject was not included in many public speeches, congressional testimony and the Secretary of State's United Nations presentation in early 2003.

The background above makes it even more troubling that the 16 words eventually made it into the State of the Union speech. This was a mistake.

Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct, i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

[DrBB]

8. Yup--all he's done is confirm Gjelten

Well, that was a fairly damning story as I read it. "The CIA wouldn't let us put in the Niger Uranium thing we got from the Brits cuz they said it was bullshit. But what if we said 'the Brits say...' etc., would that be okay? Even if the CIA themselves had told the Brits it was BS back last fall? And the CIA said, well, it's factually true, so if you want to work that way, go ahead, your funeral. And we said, Yippee! The CIA approves the Niger Uranium story!"

Well, gosh, you know, that just doesn't seem like the kind of exoneration I'd want if I was up on these charges.

[diamond14]

17. it's just low-life criminal behavior...the lowest kind of criminals...

these ridiculous lies are all wrapped up together...

here in DC, there are lots of murders...these bush* crimes is like a typical DC street murder....someone is dying on the street with a several BIG bullet holes in them, three guys are caught nearby and the gun in thrown onto the ground at the last minute of the chase...one guy has the victim's wallet, one guy has the victim's diamonds rings, and one guy has the victim's rolex watch...

each guy claims that the OTHER guy did it...and then, well I might have been involved but it was because I HAD TO DO IT...because the OTHER guy said so...and it goes around and around....then one guy claims the other TWO guys did it together...and around and around...

bush* and his minions are just street-level low-life criminals...nothing exotic here, folks...just straight-shooting street criminals who couldn't think their way out of a paper bag...

BTW...I'm composing a letter to send to my congressional reps tomorrow...expressioning my concern at the CIA lying to the pResident about nuclear materials...and the URGENT need for a total investigation for the security of OUR Nation....

[darkstar]

9. DrBB

Great analysis. Clean up some language, perhaps, and get this incredibly close reading into the hands of others.

However, as I chimed in on W Pitt's free for all edit the other night, I don't believe Wilson ever saw the docs in question. He looked over state and consortium operations and found them airtight.

As I said to Will, unless the story has been aired differently, his op ed says


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html?n=Top%2fOpinion%2fEditorials%20and%20Op%2dEd%2fOp%2dEd%2fContributors

<snip>
Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

(As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)
<snip>

Hope you don't find this nitpicky, etc. I think your analysis of the text in such a short time period is quite incredible.

Sincerely,

darkstar

[DrBB]

10. Vanity kick, because

things are moving so GODDAM fast tonight, sheesh. And with WaltStarr spreading doom and gloom about Tenet's so-called mea culpa I think it's worth trying to keep an alternate view above the horizon, however long and unwieldy.

:kick:

[darkstar]

11. READ THIS FOLKS!!!!!

:kick:

[havocmom]

12. Somebody, plese tell me Clinton bought the Irish pad for Tenet

to use as a base for writing his book! The sleezeballs have to be brought down.

[Gingersnap]

13. bravo!

Great analysis, great presentation. I'm a "professional discourse analyst" (which means I'm unemployed with a Ph.D...) and I couldn't have done better myself. I think you should send that to the Nation more or less as is.

:kick:

[diamond14]

18. welcome to DU, Gingersnap ! you'll like it here...we know

that bush* can be "Re-Defeated in 2004", and then with our soon-to-be-announced candidate, people can once again have jobs...

in the meantime, relax here, maybe help with the upcoming Democratic campaigns...I end up with a lot great free food at all those election events...parties and all...meet some interesting people...
make contacts, get job referrals, serve your country...there are also paid campaign jobs for those who get on board soon....

worked on Debbie Stabinaw's campaign...when she was sworn in at OUR Nation's Capital, I was invited...ate for two days at lots of events at the restaurants in DC and catered events at the Senate building, and the Congressional Library (just in the main entry foyer, not near the books!), met Senator Clinton, Senator Levin....all the big kids....

worked more recently on Lt. Gov. Kennedy's Campaign in Maryland...ate my way through several days of phone banks, and making signs in the headquarters office...too bad she lost...met lots of community-oriented really good people...


:hi:

:toast:

:toast:

[Gingersnap]

21. awe shucks amen

thanks for the warm welcome. I'm in LA and I'm signed up to volunteer for Kucinich, but so far there has only been one meeting here which I unfortunately had to miss (I have so few other things on my schedule, but this--a wedding--was important).

I've also been doing all the marches that have been in the area. Though I've always been a "liberal" I never donated to any candidate or got involved in writing my representatives until good ole W.
Makes me think we need to trot out old (not so old, but old to 18 year olds) cynics like myself to recruit the young, just-of-voting-age and apathetic out there.

[Eloriel]

15. Well done! n/t

[Jacobin]

16. This needs to be out there in a big way.

Buzzflash, maybe? or Truthout? or Slate or the Nation...with only a few expletives deleted this needs to get OUT THERE!!!

Beautiful.

[DrBB]

19. Since I just read another despairing thread about this stupid thing

...and since this has dropped to the Second Page of Death, I'm taking the liberty of kicking this again.

This is NOT the end of the bloody story guys. Read your sources. Read TPM. This will NOT get them off the hook.

[Octafish]

20. Touchdown, Doctor!!!

This should be the lead article in Sunday's The New York Times. Fredo Bushler has missed an awful lot of dots and you've helped connect some quite succinctly and clearly — on ALL our behalf. Once the CIA and Levin and Wilson and Graham get the honest Repugs in the Senate and the House onto the BFEE and it's "Adios, Sneer & Smirk!" Trahnqueyubedeemooch, DrBB.

PS: Remember in Dustin Hoffman's Little Big Man, how Gen. Custer could spot a man's occupation simply by his demeanor? "You. You are a mule-skinner." I must add the only job I've seen this washed-out cheerleader of a man, this unelected and satanic dunce, this mendacious sycophant for mammon, this Little Turd from Crawford, is qualified for, is that of a bathroom towel boy.

It's his countenance. The smirk isn't just nasty, it tells the world he's the Smirkelgrüber.

[Jacobin]

22. A Well Deserved KICK

:kick:

[Gingersnap]

23. 'nother kick

'cause this should be read by everyone. And I've had a little too much to drink on a Friday night...

:kick:

[DrBB]

24. One last kick before bed. See y'all in the a.m.

:kick:

[Athame]

25. Let's get a couple hundred more views on this one

:kick:

[DrBB]

26. Can't sleep dammit. Here's the TPM version

Well worth a read and much in the same vein, albeit much more sophisticated and w/out the cuss words. But essentially he sez same as me: there's no there there. The whole thing boils down to the Gjelten/NPR version. Or as Marshall puts it, in a nutshell:

But all of this begs the obvious and singularly important question: the charge is that CIA didn't push hard enough to keep bogus information out of the president's speech. Who was pushing on the other side? Who was pushing to keep the bogus information in? And why?

Same question still open. Tenet's statement only raises it more authoritatively. He has admitted the Gjelten story is true, that's all. And it's a damning admission for the *admin, not just him.

Yawn. Gotta turn out the light.

edit: oops--here:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/july0302.html#071103702pm

[Oilwellian]

27. You may enjoy this as well

It's on the DNC website:

Evidence that Bush Misled the Nation
In February 2002, Ambassador Joseph Wilson learned that the Niger connection was false, and so informed the CIA and state department. "In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau," Wilson wrote of his investigation into the purported Nigerian evidence. (Op Ed, New York Times, 7/6/03)

In March 2002, the CIA sent a cable to the White House to report the Niger connection was false. The cable, classified "secret," was sent "to the White House Situation Room in March 2002 reporting on a visit to the African country of Niger by a retired diplomat on a special mission for the CIA... His account said Iraq had sought closer economic ties with Niger but had not discussed a uranium sale." (USA Today, 6/13/03)

In October, 2002 the CIA considered the Niger information "so suspect the CIA also told the White House to drop a reference from a Bush speech on October 7th." (NBC News, 6/26/03)

The CIA asked the State Department to exclude Niger from its briefings. A month before Bush's State Of The Union Address, the CIA told the State Department to drop a reference to the uranium allegations from a white paper on alleged Iraqi weapons programs. In a later presentation on the white paper, John Negroponte, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, cut the Niger reference." {USA Today, 6/13/03}

When Bush gave his State of the Union address, the State Department had independently concluded the documents were false. The State Department's Intelligence Wing, "the Bureau of Intelligence and Research, independently came to the exact same conclusion" as the CIA, that the Niger documents were false, Greg Thielmann, an intelligence official there, said "When I saw it really blew me away...Not that stupid piece of garbage. My thought was, how did that get into the speech?" (Kristof Op-Ed, New York Times, 6/13/03; Newsweek, 6/9/03, emphasis added)

Early drafts of Bush's State Of The Union used even stronger language linking Niger To Iraq. "Earlier versions of the president's speech, this official says, did not cite British sources for the uranium claim. 'They were more definitive,' the official says, 'and we objected.' At that point, the official says, White House officials suggested, quote, 'Why don't we say the British say this?'" (NPR, 6/19/03}
http://www.democrats.org/truth/support.html

[opihimoimoi]

28. Them creepy crawly things, we all know they were pressuring all

the agencies to come up with shit to use promoting the war. Now they get caught and they want some poor dude to take a hit>?

Gimme a break. The buck stops at the top. Thats it. TOP. By Bush blaming, he confirms what the intelligent part of the world thinks of him:

COWARDLY, NARCISSANT, BULLY, DOPEY, UNREAD, LOLO, ILLADVISED, ETC INCLUDING, HE IS NAKED.

Which amounts to being DELUSIONAL.

Chauncey Gardner run amok

[DrBB]

29. Yup--all Tenet has done is confirm the ACCUSATION

His statement is entirely consistent with the NPR version and the Kristof version, both of which are about how the neo-con junta was intent on using this story even though they knew it was wrong. They told the dorks to take it out of the SOTU, the dorks said what if we just referred to the Brit report--which the CIA also knew was shit--and the CIA finally gave up and said, okay, it's factually true (kind of) so whatever....

That's what Tenet says:

Officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. Some of the language was changed. From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa. This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address. This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed.

Of course he puts it as vaguely as possible. "Officials who were reviewing the draft"--could be HIM for all we know. "Some of the language was changed"--which and by whom? "Agency officials concurred that the text in the speech was factualy correct"--which ones? And "concurred" with whom? He is saying they bowed to pressure right here, isn't he? It's there between the lines. What he is admitting is that the CIA bowed to WH pressure to keep the bogus story IN the speech.

Well, that's not falling on your sword, folks, that's testimony CONFIRMING the ACCUSATION. This is the same story that the Bushistas vehemently denied when it came out on NPR. Now they're calling it an exoneration. But it's the same fucking story!

[Jacobin]

30. Kick for morning crowd

:kick:

[trof]

31. passive voice

It's so child-like.
"What happened to the glass?"
"It broke."

[chiburb]

32. Another well-deserved BOOT! n/t

.