AP: "Iraq Uranium Claim Gets Some Support," but not really.

[Sparkly]

"A Senate Intelligence Committee report found inadequate evidence that deposed Iraqi President Saddam had been rebuilding his nuclear weapons program. It cited various reports, however, that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa. Thus, although Bush cited only British evidence that was determined to have been inconclusive, other intelligence files clearly contained other inconclusive evidence of the truth of the claim."

It only gets worse from there... For example:

"The committee cited separate reports received from foreign intelligence services on Oct. 15, 2001, and Feb. 5, 2002, and March 25, 2002. The State Department doubted the accuracy of the reports, but the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency had more confidence in them."

(snip)

"An internal CIA memo from June 17, 2003, said, 'We no longer believe there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.'"

Why this is titled "Some Support" is a mystery to me.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&ncid=703&e=1&u=/ap/20040718/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_uranium

[frylock]

1. i guess if they keep presenting the same stale "evidence"..

it will eventually stick.. like a turd on the wall.

[Sparkly]

2. "other intelligence files clearly contained other inconclusive evidence"

I guess that's supposed to make us think there's something new.

[frylock]

4. clearly

[Dudley_DUright]

3. Josh Marshall completely demolishes the "British Evidence" canard

<snip>

No, they didn't have the forged documents. But one of their two reports -- indeed, the more important of the two -- was a written summary of the documents provided by Italy -- the same summary the Italians had earlier provided to the Americans, which the CIA used to brief Joe Wilson before they sent him off to Niger. The second report came to them apparently only a week or so before they issued their public document with the claim about Iraq trying to buy uranium in Africa.

This point is pretty widely understood by people following or reporting on this story. But what's interesting to note is the difference between the Butler Report's rendition of events and that of a UK parliamentary committee report produced in September 2003 and chaired by Ann Taylor, an MP who would later serve as a member of the Butler committee.

Here's how the parliamentary committee described the Brits' two sources of evidence on pages 27 and 28 (emphasis added)...

more...

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_07_11.php#003168

[buycitgo]

5. did I miss it today, or did Joe Wilson on CNN not mention

those two summaries? I didn't see the whole thing, but when I saw him discuss what the brits knew, he didn't mention those summaries

am I right about that?

and did he seem a bit more defensive with Leslie than he might have been, especially since the likes of Rush have been calling him an outright LIAR about everything he's said?

franken and conason did a better job defending him on AAR this week than I thought he did himself

tell me I'm wrong, but I'd sure like him to be more forceful, the way he was at the beginning.

didn't he realize how AT him they'd be?

[Dudley_DUright]

6. I think you are correct

I don't recall him mentioning it in his response either.

[greekspeak]

7. "Say it often enough and it will become true"

Or at least the sheeple will think so. Read an article about this in my paper today, and it is clearly an attempt at BushCo damage control and nothing else. I am sure FAUX has been harping on this crap all day long. Nothing has changed here folks...they just are regurgitating crap. It looked in the article like Repuke Pat Roberts was trying to cover Shrub's ass.