<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sixteen Truthful Words</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/sixteen_truthful_words/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/sixteen_truthful_words/</link>
	<description>Online Journal of Politics and Foreign Affairs</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 00:13:17 -0600</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science &#187; Things that are Annoying me Today (the WMD/16 Words Edition)</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/sixteen_truthful_words/comment-page-1/#comment-51576</link>
		<dc:creator>PoliBlog: Politics is the Master Science &#187; Things that are Annoying me Today (the WMD/16 Words Edition)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Jul 2005 15:15:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=6916#comment-51576</guid>
		<description>[...] As James Joyner notes: So far, the Big Lie seems to be working on this one, though. The retractions aren&#8217;t getting nearly the attention that the drumbeat of lies got and the impression that Bush got us into the war on the basis of lies is now received wisdom, despite a steady flow of evidence to the contrary. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] As James Joyner notes: So far, the Big Lie seems to be working on this one, though. The retractions aren&#8217;t getting nearly the attention that the drumbeat of lies got and the impression that Bush got us into the war on the basis of lies is now received wisdom, despite a steady flow of evidence to the contrary. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: second mortgage</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/sixteen_truthful_words/comment-page-1/#comment-38273</link>
		<dc:creator>second mortgage</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Mar 2005 06:25:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=6916#comment-38273</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;second mortgage&lt;/strong&gt;
Please check the sites about auto loan cash loan college loan </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>second mortgage</strong><br />
Please check the sites about auto loan cash loan college loan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Iddybud</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/sixteen_truthful_words/comment-page-1/#comment-20680</link>
		<dc:creator>Iddybud</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:50:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=6916#comment-20680</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Around the blogs today&lt;/strong&gt;
...a writer to &quot;Outside the Beltway&quot; only known as &#039;GP&#039; raises common-sense questions and comments.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Around the blogs today</strong><br />
...a writer to "Outside the Beltway" only known as 'GP' raises common-sense questions and comments.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ambient Irony</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/sixteen_truthful_words/comment-page-1/#comment-20647</link>
		<dc:creator>Ambient Irony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2004 09:45:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=6916#comment-20647</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;M N O Goldfish&lt;/strong&gt;
Geeze, it&#039;s only July and already the Democrats are circling the drain. I was hoping for more entertainment than that....</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>M N O Goldfish</strong><br />
Geeze, it's only July and already the Democrats are circling the drain. I was hoping for more entertainment than that....</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GP</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/sixteen_truthful_words/comment-page-1/#comment-20577</link>
		<dc:creator>GP</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2004 16:17:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=6916#comment-20577</guid>
		<description>My understanding is that Lord Butler said that it was reasonable to conclude that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger, and that there was evidence of this outside of the faked documents.  He did not say they had conclusive proof however.  Some of these articles responding to Butler&#039;s report are reading more into the report than is there in that they are essentially concluding without doubt that Saddam tried to do this and that alone was cause for war.  Maybe, maybe not?  A lot more investigation and understanding of the evidence and its ramifications need to be understood to conclude that.  Lord Butler&#039;s report doesn&#039;t provide much in the way of details that would be helpful to so conclude.  So in some ways, Butler&#039;s report on this matter may lead credence to the argument that this was another instance that there was a rush to war without fully getting the evidence of a real and timely threat.  And this is pretty much what Bush said: he wasn&#039;t going to sit around and wait to put together a &quot;slam dunk&quot; case.  Bush made a policy choice about the threshold of going to war that can certainly be discussed, but it&#039;s unlikely he was a bold-faced liar as some accuse.

I suspect that its partisan &quot;journalism&quot; striking again.  In any case, the report is nonetheless helpful to the president on the issue because it helps counter the &quot;Bush Lied&quot; argument.

Two items are still puzzling though:

1. Assuming Saddam did try and buy the yellowcake, what was he planning on doing with it?  It has now pretty much been concluded that Saddam had no nuclear weapons program (yes there were some plans for one found, but no evidence that anything had been put in place or even started).  So Saddam having this material would be of no use to him directly since he would need a lot of sophisticated equipment to process it.  Maybe he was planning to sell it to another country who had the technology to process it.  But the countries likely to buy it already have sophisticated nuclear programs where the yellow cake would have been child&#039;s play (North Korea, Pakistan).  Maybe terrorist&#039;s could use it to turn it into a dirty bomb?  I don&#039;t know whether this is technologically possible or likely, and so far there is no &quot;slam dunk&quot; connections between Saddam and terrorists.  In some ways, more questions are raised by Lord Butler&#039;s report on this subject than answered.

2. If the intelligence community had reasonable evidence tha Saddam did this (outside of the faked documents of course), why then did the Bush administration come out so strongly and say that it was absolutely wrong for them to have included the reference in the state of the union speech.  I don&#039;t recall the words exactly when they retracted the yellowcake point, but the Bush administration&#039;s words left little doubt that Saddam did not try to buy the yellowcake.

Maybe this was another example of the left hand of the Bush administration not knowing what the right hand was doing.  In other words, one scenario that can be imagined is that when Wilson created a media feeding frenzy, Rove said the only way to stop it was to come out and say the speech was wrong (yet they did this without making sure that was the case).  In any case, it&#039;s perplexing and worrisome that the Bush administration seems so confused on this issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My understanding is that Lord Butler said that it was reasonable to conclude that Saddam tried to buy uranium in Niger, and that there was evidence of this outside of the faked documents.  He did not say they had conclusive proof however.  Some of these articles responding to Butler's report are reading more into the report than is there in that they are essentially concluding without doubt that Saddam tried to do this and that alone was cause for war.  Maybe, maybe not?  A lot more investigation and understanding of the evidence and its ramifications need to be understood to conclude that.  Lord Butler's report doesn't provide much in the way of details that would be helpful to so conclude.  So in some ways, Butler's report on this matter may lead credence to the argument that this was another instance that there was a rush to war without fully getting the evidence of a real and timely threat.  And this is pretty much what Bush said: he wasn't going to sit around and wait to put together a "slam dunk" case.  Bush made a policy choice about the threshold of going to war that can certainly be discussed, but it's unlikely he was a bold-faced liar as some accuse.</p>
<p>I suspect that its partisan "journalism" striking again.  In any case, the report is nonetheless helpful to the president on the issue because it helps counter the "Bush Lied" argument.</p>
<p>Two items are still puzzling though:</p>
<p>1. Assuming Saddam did try and buy the yellowcake, what was he planning on doing with it?  It has now pretty much been concluded that Saddam had no nuclear weapons program (yes there were some plans for one found, but no evidence that anything had been put in place or even started).  So Saddam having this material would be of no use to him directly since he would need a lot of sophisticated equipment to process it.  Maybe he was planning to sell it to another country who had the technology to process it.  But the countries likely to buy it already have sophisticated nuclear programs where the yellow cake would have been child's play (North Korea, Pakistan).  Maybe terrorist's could use it to turn it into a dirty bomb?  I don't know whether this is technologically possible or likely, and so far there is no "slam dunk" connections between Saddam and terrorists.  In some ways, more questions are raised by Lord Butler's report on this subject than answered.</p>
<p>2. If the intelligence community had reasonable evidence tha Saddam did this (outside of the faked documents of course), why then did the Bush administration come out so strongly and say that it was absolutely wrong for them to have included the reference in the state of the union speech.  I don't recall the words exactly when they retracted the yellowcake point, but the Bush administration's words left little doubt that Saddam did not try to buy the yellowcake.</p>
<p>Maybe this was another example of the left hand of the Bush administration not knowing what the right hand was doing.  In other words, one scenario that can be imagined is that when Wilson created a media feeding frenzy, Rove said the only way to stop it was to come out and say the speech was wrong (yet they did this without making sure that was the case).  In any case, it's perplexing and worrisome that the Bush administration seems so confused on this issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PoliBlog</title>
		<link>http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/sixteen_truthful_words/comment-page-1/#comment-20572</link>
		<dc:creator>PoliBlog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2004 15:30:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">/?p=6916#comment-20572</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Things that are Annoying me Today (the WMD/16 Words Edition)&lt;/strong&gt;
The Wilson/Plame/Yellowcake story (as well-discussed by Opinion &gt; Op-Ed Columnist: Sixteen Truthful Words&quot; href=&quot;http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/opinion/19SAFI.html?ex=1247976000&amp;en=7eeb45872cfb9727&amp;ei=5090&amp;partner=rssuserland&quot;&gt;Bill Safire) annoys...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Things that are Annoying me Today (the WMD/16 Words Edition)</strong><br />
The Wilson/Plame/Yellowcake story (as well-discussed by Opinion > Op-Ed Columnist: Sixteen Truthful Words" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/opinion/19SAFI.html?ex=1247976000&#038;en=7eeb45872cfb9727&#038;ei=5090&#038;partner=rssuserland">Bill Safire) annoys...</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
