talking point heard today: The Brits still stand by the Niger evidence

[librechik]

All the whores today (including Brooks and Blitzer) finished off their "oh it was British intelligence" excuse with this meme. I heard this construct several times today and the GOP op being asked the question just says solemnly,"yes they are."

I don't get it! Are the Brits really standing by the Niger story as in accepting it as fact? Even tho we now know it was false, and they now know it was false, are the Brits still standing by this story? In what way? WTF?!?

I mean, isn't and wasn't it obvious to everyone now and probably since early 2002 that the Niger docs were crude forgeries . Yet still they used the story as a linchpin of their case! And not as a f*ng minor pin either! If evidence of nuclear weapons is a minor, insignificant point and it really doesn't matter if it's "dubious" because there is SO MUCH other better evidence that made it urgent and necessary to "intervene in Iraq" then why even mention the nuke lie? Why not show the better evidence? They claim it was just one minor point among many HIGHLY CONVINCING points, so they can chuck it if it's false and so what.

And just exactly what was that compelling voluminous concrete and indisputable evidence again? If you take out the mushroom clouds what was left? A taped conversation of obscure origins and translation manipulated and disputed? Tubes made of non-anodyzed aluminum that would have killed the electronics in any missile? "Tons" of chemical and bio weapons that a) we have testimony from several sources was destroyed by 98, and b) if not destroyed was so unstable it would not survive even a few months hidden in storage, although it might survive the 45 minutes Tony mentioned. Again, what is this inarguable evidence Powell had? All of Powell's story has proven "dubious" too, if you will notice.

Are the Brits really standing by this Niger fable even now? If so, Bush, by citing the still stood-by Niger intelligence, was innocent and blameless, right? And since they're STANDING BY the story, the story is somehow factually correct, at least in the Brits viewpoint. So something we all agree on is a falsehood is in "fact" correct? I'm I getting this Orwellian doublespeak right?

I mean they have also said, we know the CIA doesn't stand by this evidence, and yet we will make it legitimate by saying the Brits believe it. Right? But now we know it was forged, and the Brits knew it was forged, so how does the Brits standing by it make it true?

For the life of me I don't understand this strategery. WTF are they doing? Is this Bizarro World? My head is spinning. Can you polish excrement and make it shine?

I think I know the answer to that, at least...

[jpgray]

1. Blair knew it was false in September 2002

That shouldn't fly at all

[NYC]

2. Blair is claiming there were 2 "other" sources regarding NIgerium

uranium, and he doesn't have to disclose those sources unless they volunteer to be disclosed.

[linazelle]

3. The "British Intelligence" meme doesn't exonerate Bush

If British Intelligence was the cause of the lie, then why is Tenet apololgizing? Even if the info came from British intelligence, US intelligence and Bush had a responsibility to check it. Furthermore, the stories this week say Bush was told that the info was false but insisted on using it anyway knowing that the "out" was this very meme.

It's not bizarro world, but it's damn complicated and that's what they want it to be so most will lose track.

[caledesi]

4. Lib...this is definitely "bizzaro world." ...good post.

[PurityOfEssence]

5. Yes, but only when having a smoke out by the dustbin

Mmmmm...desperation...