Reply #266: Finally we can BEGIN to discuss Somerby's ridiculous nitpicking. [View All]

[stickdog]

WILSON (page 337): Had I been the chief executive of this operation, as President Bush likes to say that he is, I would have been furious that a member of my staff had inserted such an obviously false claim in the most important speech I might ever make.

The claim was false because there was and is no backing evidence to make the claim. You just can't make any claim in the SOTU and say it's true unless it can be PROVEN otherwise. A claim delivered by the POTUS to Congress needs to have a valid basis -- otherwise it is a FALSE claim.

So where is BUSH'S EVIDENCE that this claim has a VALID BASIS? Isn't this the REAL question that Somerby is conveniently ignoring?

Note that, in the context that Wilson made this statement, he's clearly PRESUMING the lack of any and all evidence. Given the FACT that no evidence has ever been presented and that no reason has been given for the refusal to present such evidence, WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH WILSON'S PRESUMPTION???


WILSON (page 334): The path to writing the op-ed piece had always been clear in my mind. My government had refused to address the fundamental question of how the lie regarding Saddam's supposed attempt to purchase African uranium had found its way into the State of the Union address... I had to raise it, publicly and in my own words. I realized that my credibility would be called into question, and I was steeled for that. But whatever one might say about me--and there is a lot--the truth remained: There was never any evidence of Iraqi uranium purchases from Niger.

To dispute this passage is to claim that there is in fact some actual evidence that Iraq purchased uranium from Niger. So WHERE THE FUCK IS THIS EVIDENCE? If it exists, WHY CAN'T WE SEE IT???