Redstate

How the brave patriots of the left ignore this.

appointed WMD search teams failed to look up this information?  Its too bad the administration couldn't have found someone competent to conduct this search!

I can't help but wonder how long the MSM can maintain their support for the left's drumbeat of of BushLied&trade, et al.

Are they so closed minded that they will continue down this path even though it becoming painfully obvious that they and the left are the ones who have been "liberal with the truth?" Or is there some point where it will simply not be sustainable any longer and they will toss their "friends" on the left over the transom?

Hitchens is so determined to prove his views on this that he seems to think that speculation and insinuation equal actual guilt.

Maybe Zawahi did go to Niger for Yellow Cake. Maybe he went because he was trying to get the blockade busted.  I have no idea and Hitchens apparently doesn't either.  

Also these aren't new revelations.  What is the NEW information Hitchens is providing, outside of an unsource "NATO" report?  

Anything to hang on to the last hope that Wilson was the powerful bully and the White House the poor 100-pound weakling.  Notice, no judgment here about Wilson the man, just that I have a hard time pitying the White House or ascribing 100% pure motives to their actions.

Oh, and the only thing else to add is the irony of conservatives now shouting "the documents are forged but the content is true!"  Enough to make Dan Rather smile.

1. ...how long the MSM... forever.
   
   
2. Are they so closed minded... yes.
   
   
3. Or is there some point... ONLY when they can no longer afford to buy ink.

Have a cup of strong coffee.  Maybe you should consider a strong drink.  Take a deep breath.  Welcome back to reality.

that he didn't go to Niger for yellowcake.

The UN had sanctions in place and Saddam could only sell oil for revenue that could be used for humanitarian purposes like food and medicine.  He had no money to use for yellowcake or military spending.  Niger was in no position to grant him credit.  I doubt they take American Express or Visa.  Maybe Discover.

Now that we have access to the document trails from Saddam's government, we know his only concern during those years was making sure his people were fed and cared for.  Zawahi could have only been in Niger to purchase chick peas, their other major export.

Oh, and the only thing else to add is the irony of conservatives now shouting "the documents are forged but the content is true!"  Enough to make Dan Rather smile.

The article specifically states that one document is forged while another is true. Mr Rather on the other hand never admitted that his documents were forged nor did he claim to have others that weren't. So that is a non sequitur.

But to deal with this KnownFact for the last time. Do tell me what is untrue about this statement.

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The British have said that and have not backed down. Hitchens is adding pieces to the puzzle. He does not claim to have the smoking gun. Intelligence matters rarely do, and more often then not are based on piecing together complex puzzles.

So the blinders might be on, but the question is: on who?

The only known exports of Niger are uranium, chick peas and cattle; Niger is so poor that they can't even afford the dirt it takes to be dirt poor; the only thing that Iraq has the Niger could possibly need is oil and Niger couldn't afford to buy Iraqi oil (see dirt poor above) --- besides Nigeria is swimming in oil right around the corner; Niger didn't have an airline so they couldn't help break the air travel embargo; Niger is not on the Forbes list of "100 Best Places to Vacation Even for Middle East Dictators"; Saddam could probably buy all the chick peas his country could ever need in a Baghdad Seven-11; ...

Yep. There's you're right there's no proof. But a reasonable man might draw the conclusion ...

is almost as valid as Hitchens ethereal claims.

FTR, I don't care about Joe Wilson or Niger.  It's history.  It's over.  

But some of you guys seem sooooo desperate to be vindicated on this that you'll acccept the most wispful of accusations that support your beliefs.

Of course the fact that in 3 years of being Iraq we haven't found ANYTHING that is even remotely close to evidence of an infrastructure that could use yellow cake is largely ignored by you guys as well.

he went to Burkina-Faso and Congo-Brazzaville was just as a smoke screen for his real purpose right?  And the fact that Niger along with those countries broke the embargo against Libya in the 80s probably was just coincidence right?

I did as you suggested and had a stiff drink and I feel better now. Thanks.

for centrifuges buried in the rose garden of the guy who ran the nuke program.  I guess that doesn't count, huh?

it could just be that both countries are producers of {wait for it, here it comes, are you ready, cue music} uranium?

As a matter of fact, one of the original sources for uranium ore for the Manhattan Project was {wait for it again, here it comes, are you still ready, cue music} The Belgian Congo. The first load of ore was shipped from the Congo to the United States aboard a Boeing 314 Clipper of Pan American World Airways (my alma mater BTW) perhaps the most expensive air freight shipment in history.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/7/17/171214.shtml

Apparently, even the New York Times admits that 500 tons of yellowcake uranium were found in a repository south of Baghdad in May 2004.

This doesn't necessarily prove that Saddam got this uranium from Niger, or from Africa. But he did get it.

Quote from Newsmax article:

"First, the facts - from a reliable critic of the White House, the New York Times, which covered the story long after the paper announced it was tightening its standards on WMD news out of Iraq.

"The United States has informed an international agency that oversees nuclear materials that it intends to move hundreds of tons of uranium from a sealed repository south of Baghdad to a more secure place outside Iraq," the paper announced in a little-noticed May 2004 report.

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium," the paper revealed, before insisting: "None of it [is] enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon."

Well, almost none.

The Times went on to report that amidst Saddam's yellowcake stockpile, U.S. weapons inspectors found "some 1.8 tons" that they "classified as low-enriched uranium."

The paper conceded that while Saddam's nearly 2 tons of partially enriched uranium was "a more potent form" of the nuclear fuel, it was "still not sufficient for a weapon."

Consulted about the low-enriched uranium discovery, however, Ivan Oelrich, a physicist at the Federation of American Scientists, told the Associated Press that if it was of the 3 percent to 5 percent level of enrichment common in fuel for commercial power reactors, the 1.8 tons could be used to produce enough highly enriched uranium to make a single nuclear bomb. "

(End quote)

Come on, guys, let's not help the Bush-bashers out with this issue, when even the New York Times reported (albeit grudgingly, buried in the back pages) that Saddam had 500 tons of yellowcake and 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium!

I really don't understand why you Conservative types are so fixated on Joe Wilson or the 2003 speech.   It's ancient history.  We've had an entire election since then.  You guys won.  What's the point in going over the plays again?  

I have to admit I barely remember the whole rose garden thing.  What exactly did they find?

Does anyone know what the uses of the 2 tons of low-enriched uranium that was airlifted out of Iraq in 2004 were for and how that differs from yellowcake?

He also went to Benin which isn't in the Congo.

to my question below.

that what you were referring to was in a UN-sealed repository and that it was accounted for in 1991?  Saddam did not have access to that Yellow Cake, at least after Gulf War I, The Prequel?

(If you don't get the reference, google the phrase and read the initial story in the first link.  It's a favourite of mine.)

He's a liar.  He's a partisan hack.  He wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the kneecap.  His wife wasn't a covert agent and nobody broke any laws with respect to "outing" her.

It's the left who has created the Wilson/Plame shrine.  You keep trotting the lying sob out for a round of softball with nobody on the other side of the table to bury him.  The Wilson family is irrelevant to everything but the NYT and the Sunday shows.

With respect to the Rose Garden, they found operational plans to build nuclear centrifuges and some parts ready for assembly.  Iraq could have been where Iran apparently is now in pretty short order.

I know that Burkina-Faso is an independent nation.

I know it is not in the Congo.

I also know that Burkina-Faso produces uranium.

I also know that Benin is not part of the Congo.

I also know that there is evidence of uranium deposits in Benin, which makes sense as it shares borders with both Niger and Burkina-Faso!

Any more countries you'd like to drop in to keep moving the goal posts?

Wow.  So a few parts and some blueprints really is just one step from building a hardening uranium enriching plant.  Especially when you are constantly monitored.

Seriously who brings up Joe Wilson from the Left except to say "Valerie Plame, wife of Joe Wilson"?

I forget that the only evidence that is acceptable to the left that someone might be developing nuclear capability is a mushroom cloud.

My bad.

he managed to conspire with his wife to "debunk" some of the intelligence the President relied on to justify the war, then when the President tried to defend himself, he used a little-known law to get the Vice President's assistant indicted, and that investigation led to the "revelation" that Bush "leaked" classified information.

It's all a bunch of lies and spin, but it plays well in the left-wing media, which lots of people read, and some of them don't have the discernment to separate the truth from the lies.

Wilson is a liar and a partisan hack, but he is good at it, and is revered by the MSM as a former Ambassador. He needs to be debunked once and for all.

the left had a pretty good time using Joe Wilson and the "Niger" uranium to hammer George Bush for quite a while as I recall.

Now that there is even more evidence that he was just a lying S*B from the get-go the left thinks he's "so last week, can't we move on."

You brought up the Congo with your snide history lesson.

Why does this site make no reference to either country as a uranium producing country? Or this site or this site

Logic and reason aren't the strong suit of the Right.

Seriously I'm not being overly picky here.  You just seem to think that insinuation and speculation is enough to prove your point.  It's not.

And why your references don't mention it is beyond my humble understanding.

It took me all of 30 seconds on Google to confirm Burkina-Faso. I didn't even bother to confirm the Congo because I've known about uranium from the Congo for decades.

Here endeth the <snide> lesson.

the fact that there might be some uranium in any of those countries seems like a mighty stretch.  Lots of countries have SOME uranium.  

strong points of the right, I guess we just need to give up and admit that BushLied and get it over with.

After all, there is no credible evidence that Saddam ever had or ever developed or ever would have used WMD's.  It's all about oil.

Seriously who brings up Joe Wilson from the Left except to say "Valerie Plame, wife of Joe Wilson"?

This made me laugh. Now it's the right that makes a big deal about Wilson, Plame, Niger et. all? Surely you are joking.

As far as the right is concerned, Wilson could go live in Niger. It is the left which keeps dragging him out as evidence that BushLied (tm).

You do see what the title of this diary is?  

He was just on This Week with Stephanopoulos on Sunday. For some incomprehensible reason, he's still viewed as some kind of WMD expert. His wife may be, but Wilson is more a political proxy for his wife than a weapons intelligence proxy. Actually, Wilson should be on the same credibility-scrap-heap as Jayson Blair. He's not, with the MSM at least, because he's anti-Bush and he's an excellent liar.

Mr. Wilson has been in the news this week (This Week with Steph) and hardly as a result of any action on the right.

but here is a counterpoint, coming directly from the ambassador in question.

the assumption that the Left and the MSM have the slightest interest in the truth and facts of the matter.

The do not!

I'm sure they are perfectly aware of the truth - just as are we; but they are pushing a cognitive regime; building a legend - facts be damned.

May 22nd, 2004, the Saturday New York Times, page A10.  Something about 500 tons of yellowcake found at al-Tuwaitha . . .

Go to any public library and ask for the microfilms of the NYT from May '04 and see for yourself.  (I did.)

Next he'll tell us we're the ones who invented the whole Cindy Sheehan uproar.

Is that he had it.  If the sanctions came off, like the Russians and French were pushing for, how long before he got the seals off?  

And, you do remember the nuclear scientist who had the nuclear centrifuge buried in his backyard--the one who wrote the book The Bomb In My Garden . . . you're not saying that he made that story up, are you?

The documents that haven't been translated yet will tell the story.  And it will vindicate President Bush, to the Left's horror.

How could any self-respecting dictator with access to the billions of oil money Saddam had access to not seek nuclear weapons?  He would be a traitor to his avocation.

As per the Duefler report and as mentioned by Hitchens Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981 from Niger. So not only is it established that Niger produces uranium,its also established that Niger produced at least some of the uranium that Iraq acquired in the past.

How many times are you going to move the $#%#%# goal posts.

You: There's no proof he went to Niger about uranium.

Me: Why the H*ll else would someone go to Niger, the beach resorts?

You: Well, then why did he also go the Congo and Burkina-Faso?

Me: Well, could be because they produce uranium too.

You: Burkina isn't in the Congo.

Me: I know that, who said it was?

You: Oh yeah! Well what about Benin?

Me: There is also evidence of uranium deposits in Benin.

You: Well, you brought up the Congo.

Me: No, you brought up the Congo.

You: And besides my sources don't say anything about uranium in those countries.

Me: Well, mine did.

You: Well so what, lots of places have uranium

Is this the famous win the argument by driving the other guy nuts strategy? You're doing it with mbecker908 on the centrifuges and Joe Wilson too.

------------

You probably noticed already, but put a (;) on the end of that &trade.  HTML goodies, like UNIX, are handy, but not that good at doing what we MEANT to say.  Sigh....

When I am elected the despotic ruler of RS, and by extension the Americas, I will make a new decree.  I will allow myself and a few chosen others to go back and edit comments they've already made.  Oh wait, that would be, like, my fellow editors.....never mind.

he used a little-known law to get the Vice President's assistant indicted,

Perjury is a little-known law?

were apparently enriched to, or very near, the level required for power generation --- or as feedstock to further enrichment to weapons grade.

Yellowcake is unrefined uranium bearing ore. By itself it doesn't do anything, it just sits there and "be's yellow."

I was having so much fun I was typing too fast.

You guys make all sorts of assumptions about what I said and yet I'm one the one driving people nuts.

I mentioned a SPECIFIC country in the Congo to which  you mentioned your history lesson about the US trying to get uranium from the Belgian Congo.  There were 3 other countries I referenced and none of them  were in the Congo.  

It's funny how the onus is on me to PROVE that they DIDN'T go to Niger for uranium when I never said that they didn't.  I explicitly said that we don't know eventhough the title of this diary, as does Christopher Hitchens, that we DO KNOW.  

You guys take one bit of evidence and triumph as the proof in total.  It's weak reasoning based on desired results.  If you're fine with that then great.  I can't make people be critical of their own biases.  

As for Joe Wilson you guys are the ones that are talking about it.  Thus my reference to the obsession.  

Keep beating this horse though.  It might have some life in it.

"The repository, at Tuwaitha, a centerpiece of Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons program until it was largely shut down after the first Persian Gulf war in 1991, holds more than 500 tons of uranium, none of it enriched enough to be used directly in a nuclear weapon. . . .

"Of the uranium, 500 tons is naturally occurring ore or yellowcake, a slightly processed concentrate that cannot be directly used in a bomb. Some 1.8 tons is classified as low-enriched uranium, a more potent form but still not sufficient for a weapon."

of my watch.  

Do you have point, other than Saddam was not and would not be a threat to US interests under any circumstance that could be conceived?

We'll just give you the points that you believe we should not have gone into Iraq.  That there was no evidence to justify our invasion.  Or all those UNSC resolutions.  Or the oil for food program.  Saddam was just a pretty benign guy who had this thing for killing Iraqis but he didn't have an axe to grind with anybody else.

We were wrong.  The French were right.

I laid out my reasons for opposing the war in my very first diary at RedState.

You may carry on with your assault on the StrawMen.

this is the famous win the argument by going around in circles and frustrating the cr*p out of the other guy strategy.

I give up, you win, you are obviously correct. There is nothing that I can say that will not result in yet another move of the goal posts so I'm going to stop trying. Ciao.

Long on feelings and feel good.  Short on relevant fact in context with 2001 - 2003.

With arguments like this we don't need a straw man.

Wilson is not an excellent (as in skillful) liar. I believe there have been a couple of investigations that proved that.

Wilson is on the MSM "news" shows for one reason: it suits their agenda.

As for Joe Wilson you guys are the ones that are talking about it.

So the left has let matters rest, and the right has resurrected Wilson from the dead??? Give. Me. A. Break.

for Palaces.  The Oil-for-Food program was so corrupt as to make the sanctions meaningless.

to provide my arguments PRIOR to the invasion.  Not sure what "feelings" were involved.  

I'm noticing more and more people here at RedState who are becomming so ensconced in their views that they seem to think that those who may disagree with them should simply bow down to the self-evident righteousness of their views.

I could just as easily argue how many of you seem to revert to the same tired cliches about Liberals whenever they are asked to defend their views.

So far no one in this thread has actually responded with evidence to counter my original point. Maybe this guy did go to Niger for uranium.  Maybe he went because his favorite restaurant is there.  I don't know and neither does anyone else except him and maybe Hussein.  

You want hide behind cheap rhetoric about me moving the goal posts, go ahead.  You want to think that the reason he went to all of these neighboring countries wasn't because they were, oh I don't know, NEIGHBORS but because he was looking to get uranium.  When you have a conclusion it really isn't that hard to come up with some arguments to support it.

I shouldn't have said that.  Honestly I don't follow the Partisan Left much so I really can't say what they doing with any degree of accuracy.

It gets really really really tiring having to defend  my motives every time a discussion doesn't go the way some of you want it to.  

Believe it or not it isn't always easy to defend a point from 3 or 4 different directions.  Also believe it or not but I'm actually arguing in good faith with every person here.  

The idea that Saddam sent someone to try to purchase yellowcake from Niger is as laughable as Donald Trump sending an envoy to purchase condos in Guantanamo from Castro. Niger doesn't control it's uranium and everyone, including Saddam, knows it.

Hitchins is so easily dismissed because he makes up his opposition's position, then knocks it down.  No one on the left bothers to argue because it's not their position he states.

"paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore." - A Google search for "niger resources" brings up just a few more "reasons" than uranium.  No one doubts uranium is "a" reason.  But to predicate your entire thesis on "absolutely nothing" except uranium is a drunkard's folly, i.e. just another Hitchin's essay.

"you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious." - The trouble with this straw man is if Saddam REALLY wanted to buy uranium from Niger, he would have sent his man to FRANCE, not Niger.

The most imprtant aspect of this story seems to lie in the headline "On Niger and uranium, Joe Wilson lied."  That's the tired process of slammming the messenger to ignore the message.  The official apology for the "sixteen words" just hasn't sunk in yet, has it?  But don't take my word for it.  See what the government itself knew over a year ago by reading: wmd.gov

And if you are still willing to accept Hitchin's fabrications over the official Bush-appointed commission's findings, well then, I've got some condos in Cuba you might be interested in.

"you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious." - The trouble with this straw man is if Saddam REALLY wanted to buy uranium from Niger, he would have sent his man to FRANCE, not Niger.

Why didn't Joe Wilson go to France instead of Niger- and how could he conclude, if you believe his accounts, that Saddam didn't try to buy yellowcake if he needed to go through France?

As to this guy... seems a shame to waste a banning on him, really.  I mean, a), he can't even spell Hitch's name right; and, b), the irony of him going onto a right-wing website and try to demolish Hitch's arguments by saying that nobody on the left bothers anymore with trying to demolish Hitch's arguments is actually pretty enjoyable to see.

From the Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12115-2004Oct6_2.html

"Duelfer also found no information to support allegations that Iraq sought uranium from Africa or any other country after 1991"

That was from the man "whom the Bush administration chose to complete the U.S. investigation of Iraq's weapons programs,"

Was he very gullible or addled or both?

Tom

naked in his very first post.  At least fake it for a while...

According to the Senate SCI Report, (p 53), quoting the CIA DO report based on Wilson's debriefing:

Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(REDACTED) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

Mayaki was the Niger Prime Minister in 1999. This "delegation" sounds like the Zahawie group.

Surely there is a middle ground between "mushroom cloud" and a flight schedule.

So now it's WilsonLied™?

Unless, of course, a Democrat is President.  THEN it's different.

that Hitchens provides no absolute proof of the president's claim, but it does add pieces to this puzzle.

ignores this. They'll make a big deal of Scooter "lying" though

you would be well served to read them all.  That's about 15 time as many word as were in Bush's infamous "16 words" all of which (as asserted by JPH sbove) were true.

Hunter,

Redstate got them to discuss it.  They discuss this topic and you here:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/11/195156/594

The link is to a diary at Daily KOS called

"Hitchens, Iraq, Niger, Uranium, Wilson and RedState "

Enjoy,

JavaJoe

Plame used her official capacity to subvert the interests of The United States by sending her husband on a trip designed not find the truth but to produce a specific result.  Wilson used the fact that his debrief was still classified to lie about his findings for purely political reasons.  The MSM failed to highlight the discrepancies between Wilsons NYT op-ed and the findings of The Senate Committe on Intelligenc.

Not much can be done about the MSM, but Plame and Wilson should be more than just bebunked unless that becomes a euphemism for being hung for treason.  (I mean hung in the same spirit as was used recently by Ben Affleck)

"He's a liar.  He's a partisan hack.  He wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the kneecap...  

...It's the left who has created the Wilson/Plame shrine.  You keep trotting the lying sob out for a round of softball with nobody on the other side..."

Hack doesn't seem quite the right word.  Didn't George Bush refer to him as a couragious American.

A quick look under his name at Wikipedia shows this:

"Wilson was a member of the U.S. Diplomatic Service from 1976 through 1998. From 1988 to 1991, he was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. He was hailed as "truly inspiring" and "courageous" by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than one hundred Americans at the embassy, despite Saddam Hussein's threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein (Wilson, 2003). When Saddam sent a note to Wilson (along with other embassy heads in Iraq) threatening to execute anyone sheltering foreigners in Iraq, Wilson publicly repudiated the dictator by showing up to a press conference wearing a homemade noose around his neck. Saddam offered a public apology for the diplomatic note.

Wilson later served as U.S. ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe under President George H. W. Bush and helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council under President Bill Clinton."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_C._Wilson

That's a decent article on Wilson for those that want to flush him out a bit more.

Enjoy,

Java Joe

We see it all the time.  They can't help swinging at us, because the Internet is full of people who think that doing that sort of thing is somehow going to magically help get their candidates elected; but it's almost as if they consider it an admission of weakness to act as if we are: a), not irredeemably evil; b), sane; c), capable of rational thought; or d), have legitimate reasons to think the way that we do.  'd' is the real killer, I'd say; it's harder than it looks to give up core assumptions.

All this being said, the truly funny ones are the people who pretend to be conservatives themselves, especially when they try to sound like they think we think we sound.

Hitchens can't do anything to prove or disprove the President's claim which was

The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

Only the Brithish government can do that and they stand by their claim which was

Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

One reason they left it there is that yellow cake takes a lot of processing.  It takes tons of yellow cake to produce a small amount of fissionable material.  It isn't like sticking it in an easy bake oven.  I can probably find a link that describes all that has to happen but there is a long road between having yellow cake and doing anything with it.  

And even a longer road between low grade weapons and high grade weapons.

Java Joe

that the Kos Koolaid Kids have to be shepherded so carefully by their poltroon leader.

You did a fine job.

What is the point anyway?  Wilson was right?  Wilson was wrong?

It doesn't matter.  By that I mean it doesn't alter the indictments in the past, the indictments in the future or the basis for same.

Nor does it make the case for an imminent threat.

At most it is a distraction.  But you do a fine job of shining light.

best,

Java Joe

You do realize that what you were referring to was in a UN-sealed repository and that it was accounted for in 1991?  Saddam did not have access to that Yellow Cake, at least after Gulf War I

[Emphasis Added - JRS]

 Yep, not without a pair of wire cutters anyway.

but, from the left point of view, it seems that Hitchens is stretching the truth and grasping at straws, and that it doesn't add up.  Rather than elaborate here, I'll just direct you to my Daily Kos diary on the subject, if you want to read it.

BTW, Krempasky, if you're reading this, keep up the good Folding@Home work!

nobody "shepherded" me into writing it.

what all these goodies are?  How to use them?

that the left doesn't care about Wilson and Plame anymore.  And tell Fitz while you're at it.

http://tntluoma.com/sidebars/codes/

As for using them, just type the code that you see in the left, and it will give you the character you see on the right.  For instance, if you type (ampersand)trade(semicolon), you'll get ™

I almost stopped after that unkind personal jab at someone's sobriety, but I kept on.

I found your logic difficult to follow, as the diary made what appeared to be several unsupported feats of legerdemain, but I'm rather sleepy right now, so perhaps in the morning I'll be better able to understand your reasoning.

http://www.htmlhelp.com/reference/html40/entities/symbols.html

http://www.alanwood.net/demos/ent4_frame.html

http://www.primeshop.com/html/jump3b.htm

There are more. I think the first reference is about the best overall.

Note that some of the various tables do not list some symbols. For example, the last reference above shows the trademark symbol being "&#153;" but does not include the easier to remember "&trade;"

John

check it and get back to me.

The personal animosity toward Hitchens is more borne of his condescension more than anything else.

In looking through the one suggested by hekebolos from dKos it looks better than the ones I gave you.

those are better than the one I came up with.

I thought yours was better than any one of the ones I gave him.

cumulatively, you understand...

You are a well trained sheep.

If the English tell us that the Irish are planning a secret nuclear attack on the United States is that enough to warrant a military response against Ireland?

My point being that in most cases this country does not operated on uncorroborated intelligence from other nation's intel units.  Even a close ally like England.

made his own bed.  Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame have little to do with his current imbroglio.

Koolaid Kid diet:

http://mark-kilmer.redstate.com/story/2006/4/12/121550/081

That Fitzmas is unwinding even more than it has must not be considered.

Only congenital idiots like Ben Aflack waddle around talking about gettin' strung up for treason.

reality bites the reality based community again.

Your main problem appears to be an unwillingness to see daylight while the sun is in your eyes -- that and an unreasoning distrust of the President.  You think he's Evil Incarnate, and therefore his actions are unreasonable.  Any evidence which appears to contradict the notion that the President may have a reasonable motive are discounted, reinterpreted, and mocked.

You appear to be dissenting for dissension's sake, but I am willing to be corrected in that regard.

[BTW, the diary's link to the Hitchens article appear to be broken.]

just a tool.  I believe he desperately wanted to go to war so he could have a "successful" presidency, and leverage his war presidency status as political capital to pass an otherwise unpopular domestic agenda, and the neoconservatives were more than happy to use that agenda to their advantage.

Not to mention--with all the mistakes, lies and incompetence of this administration, I still don't see why you guys haven't disowned him yet as well.

But all of this is beside the point.  My dislike of Bush, or the war, has nothing to do with what I view as the fundamental dishonesty that Hitchens shows in  continuing to justify it.

and you all do yourselves a disservice to believe stuff like this.

What do you really think?  You really think that Kos, or Mary Scott O'Connor, gives us marching orders, and we all fall in line?  The only thing that point of view shows, Hunter, is that you don't spend much time in the liberal side of the blogosphere, because if you did, you'd understand that we don't do marching orders.

I actually use my brain to write.  Need I mention what happened with the GOP Blog, Ken Mehlman, and the phrase "prive retirement accounts"?  It's your side that needs all the message control it can get.  And to be honest, our party would probably do better if we were all trained sheep that focused exclusively on the same message, but that idea would violate the fundamental ethic of what we're about, which is why it will never happen.

Need I mention what happened with the GOP Blog, Ken Mehlman, and the phrase "prive retirement accounts"?  It's your side that needs all the message control it can get.

wanted to create a blog with comments on their site, but when an early user posted a comment concerning the advantages of "private retirement accounts", Ken Mehlman ended up having the blog shut down because the proper messaging phrase for social security reform was "personal retirement accounts" and Ken realized that a blog with comments could end up being bad for the GOP's ability to stay on message.

At least you guys are still around!

It is a truly Biblical, BushLied™-level scandal that a National Party would want to stay "on message" - particularly on a subject so easily demagogued by - well, your side - as is Social Security Reform.  Surely that demonstrates the running-dog, lemming mentality of us W-Worshipers.

Honestly, and just between us, if I didn't get my daily briefing from The Rove I'd hardly remember to wipe myself after visiting the dunnie.

Thanks for pointing this out.  I'm sure it's an education for some of the less-initiated among us.

That is the price you have to pay for actually having a message besides BushLied™? :-)

Had something to do with the F-bomb. At least it appears that way whenever I wander over to one of their sites.

there used as an all encompassing cohesive message

F-Bomb BushLied™

"At least you guys are still around!"

...and you won't be.

Moe

PS: I'll give you this for free: the only response that you can make and still get to post here is "Sorry.  I won't do that again."  I'm in no mood for the usual games.

the only thing I did was use this as an example of the hypocrisy of calling me a well-trained sheep, using the example of shutting down a blog because of use of the word "private" instead of "personal".

I really don't see what BushLied™ has to do with it, but thank you for staying on message.

but honestly, I don't know what I'm apologizing for.  I truly am happy that you guys are here because it's good for democracy.

...can be seen - and we have been accused of this, just like every other right-leaning blog in the universe - as an insinuation that we're formal shills of the Republican Party.

But, if that was not your intent, that was not your intent and we will say no more on the matter.

(Hit post too soon.)

In fact, it was meant as just the opposite.  There's more disagreement and deviation here than at most other conservative blogs--which makes it interesting to read.

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060411_bush_leak_plame_libby_powell/

Hey Hekobolos,

Looks like you may be vindicated by no less than Cullen Powell.  And Wilson is starting to look like a hero.  

Robert Scheer in his discussions with Powell finds that Wilson did not lie, and Powell knew the truth before Wilson's article.

From the article:

-----excerpt--------------------

"The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote," Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush's State of the Union speech? "That was a big mistake," he said. "It should never have been in the speech. I didn't need Wilson to tell me that there wasn't a Niger connection. He didn't tell us anything we didn't already know. I never believed it."

When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn't the president: "That was all Cheney."

-------end excerpt---------------

The rest of the article is here:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20060411_bush_leak_plame_libby_powell/

enjoy,

Java Joe

I posted this comment.

We have to remember a few things:

As early as 1998, PNAC sent a letter to Clinton urging an Iraq invasion.  After 9/11, Richard Clarke reports that Bush pressed hard for any connection to Saddam, and that Rumsfeld argued for bombing Iraq "because they have better targets."  British memos say that an invasion had been decided on as early as early fall 2002, and that we even considered disguising a spy plane in UN colors to goad Saddam into an attack that we could take reciprocation on.  Colin Powell now states that Joe Wilson didn't say anything that the State Department didn't already know.  Also today, we have a WaPo report that Bush proclaimed that balloon-filling trailers were the WMD's, even though the Pentagon already knew better.

The fact of the matter is that we have two options to explain all of it: 1) all these sources are lying; or 2) the administration pressed hard to make a case for war that they knew was weak because they were trying to write the facts around the policy, rather than the other way around.  Occam's razor says that option 2 is the simplest explanation.

Does some of this have to do with Bush?  Yes.  But am I, as a Democrat, exclusively obsessed with destroying Bush to the exclusion of everything else?  No, not at all.  Frankly, if you gave me a choice between a) getting rid of Bush, or b) cleansing Washington of the neocons like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their ilk, I'd take the latter.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that impeaching Bush does absolutely no good unless PNAC goes with him.  I'm more concerned with the machinery than I am with the figurehead.

BushLied™ is the level of scandal you're implying by the great GOP Blog caper.  Nothing more.

And, in light of your tip to PNAC et al down thread, please allow me to thank you for staying on message.  You forgot the Knights Templar in your treatise, but those folks are always getting left out.

All of these stories coming forward, including the tubing issue, the NSA issue as well as the current story du jour about the vehicles that may or maynot be bio labs and what the consensus was about whether they were or not.

Sheer is a master at the innuendo, the half truth, the selective disclosure of info in order to attack the administration.

as but one case in point look at the