Counter this talking point: Senate Intel committee found Joe Wilson's trip

[Brotherjohn]

... "inconclusive".

Tony Snow said it on Bill Maher the other night, and it went unchallenged (at one point, Snow even referred to Wilson's account as "lies").

Now, besides the fact that the committee's report was a whitewash, does anyone have a more specific rebuttal to this? I know Wilson has given his specific account in the NYT and elsewhere. But how exactly did the Senate decide his results were "inconclusive", when Wilson so clearly states otherwise, with facts to back him up?

[Selatius]

1. You would need to prove Iraq indeed was going to Niger to get some

However, even if it is factually correct that the findings were "inconclusive," that would be far more than enough to challenge the assertion that Saddam was attempting to get yellowcake from Niger because such a claim cannot be supported by the facts on hand. Therefore, that claim should never have been included in the SotU address.

It is a distraction anyway, since it holds no bearing on the fact that somebody broke the law in the White House.

[JDPriestly]

2. The Senate decided that the results were :"inconclusive"

the same way they decided everything else -- by following to the letter the dictates of the wealthy, corporate interests that finance their campaigns. Don't expect to understand their "thinking." They weren't thinking. They were just minding their keepers. As long as their campaign funds are fed and full and satisfied, conservatives will vote as their keepers command. They are trained to do that, and that is what they do.

[Norquist Nemesis]

3. "Inconclusive" means they didn't have the balls to dig deep

and determine the truth.

[blm]

5. Not a matter of balls, but of design. Roberts PLANTED antiWilson

talking points INTO the addendum to the report...and he did it FOR the WH.

[blm]

4. The part of the senate report that discussed Wilson was an ADDENDUM

to the report that was signed by only THREE Repub senators, not even all the GOPs on the committee agreed to it along with NO Dems.

It is clear to many of us that Pat Roberts used this addendum to PLANT talkng points against Wilson to protect the WH and further the perception in the RW media that Wilson was the one lying.

Fitzgerald should put Roberts under oath so Roberts can explain HOW he came to his conclusions in the report that charged Wilson with lying.

Did Karl Rove help write YOUR report, too, Mr. Roberts?

[Brotherjohn]

7. Oh YEAH! I remember. A whitewash of the whitewash! That being said...

As others have pointed out, it's just a distraction anyway.

Wilson lied about Cheney sending him? NO, he didn't. And the record is very clear on that.

Wilson lied about his wife's role? NO, he didn't. And the record is very clear on that.

Wilson lied about what he found? NO, he didn't. And the record is very clear on that.

AND WHAT DOES ANY OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE PRICE OF TEA IN CHINA... OR THE FACT THAT THE WHITE HOUSE OUTED A COVERT CIA AGENT?!?

[onenote]

9. exactly

If, in fact, it was so obvious that Wilson's findings were inconclusive, why didn't the administration fight back by making its case on the merits, instead of trying to attack Wilson (and Plame).

onenote

[papau]

6. Wilson gave an oral report that all said conclude that the doc's were fake

But we now have via the WhiteHouse a planted quote in the media that says an un-named, untitled "Senior" CIA person says that Wilson's report was not as sure about them being fakes as Wilson now says he was sure.

And you can take that to the bank - or to Fox Cable News.

[Coexist]

11. And the current Ambassador said the same thing

only the addendum added after the report was complete said anything else - and that was only signed by three R senators. That should be looked into, if you ask me.

[Bob3]

8. So what?

And if it was so inconclusive -then why the hell did the WH expose his wife as revenge? That's the issue the outing of a CIA operative for political reasons - not whether or not Wilson's report was inaccurate.

[fasttense]

10. Absolutely right Bob3

The right wing wants to turn this investigation into another smear campaign for Joe Wilson. Don't let them suck you in with arguments about Joe Wilson. It's about outing a CIA agent. Valerie could have the most abusive and disgusting husband in the world, that would not justify outing a CIA agent and putting American lives at risk.

[Spazito]

12. These lies are being generated from an addendum attached to

the main report, the addendum being written by 3 republicans, Senators Roberts, Bond and Hatch, “additional comments ATTACHED to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee’s Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Assessment on Iraq. They were NOT part of the report itself as agreed to by the majority of the committee.

Here is a link to a good debunking of the right wing lies re Wilson, including a letter Wilson wrote to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee:

http://noquarter.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/10/update_on_the_l.html

[johnnydrama]

13. it seems to me

That reading between the lines of this Republican talking point gets me to the following.

Joe Wilson lied, so it's ok to out a covert CIA agent.

Isn't that what they are basically saying?

[0rganism]

14. Is there any way to get this stuff to Maher?

I watched a little bit of his exchange with Snow, he let that fucker get away with some outrageous bullshit.

Of course, the bullshit is getting very deep and it can be hard for even sincere and well-intentioned reporters, let alone audiences, to keep book. But when Maher gives Snow a free ride, that does not help. No, not at all.