Someone says, David Anderson's wife is a FILL IN THE BLANKS, and anyone who really wants to know, just needs to look. The spin that Rove did not mention her name is perhaps the lamest and most disengenious piece of crap I have ever heard.
I mean have folks on the Right become so jaded with their successes at spin, that they actually believe the American public is going to swallow this?
The same people who were arguing whether a sitting President of the United States should be thrown out of office over his definition of "sex," are now having the ardasity to present this defense, comeon guys, you don't even believe this one yourself!

And if that spin doesnt work:

"some of us are pretty incensed at the idea of a supposedly undercover CIA operative sending her own husband to Niger to dredge up fake facts in an attempt to smear a sitting President."

Rob at Wizbang...

Now... The Reality:

In the January 28 speech, Bush claimed that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." That assertion was similar to claims madepreviously by administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin Powell (CBS Evening News, 12/19/02), that Iraq had sought to import yellowcake uranium from Niger, a strong indication that Saddam Hussein's regime was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program.

In fact, the Niger story, as documented by journalist Seymour Hersh (New Yorker, 3/31/03) and others, was based on crudely forged documents. In addition, the administration's own investigation in March 2002 concluded that the story was bogus. As one former State Department official put it, "This wasn't highly contested. There weren't strong advocates on theother side. It was done, shot down" (Time, 7/21/03).

Bush's use of the Niger forgeries has received considerable media attention in recent days. Much of this reporting has been valuable, and some outlets have broadened the inquiry beyond one passage in a speech. The Washington Post's Walter Pincus, for example, suggests (7/16/03) that the uranium claim remained in the State of the Union address because "almost all the other evidence had either been undercut or disproved by U.N. inspectors in Iraq."


Fair.Org

Joe Wilson came back and said it was not true... It wasn't, how exactly was that a SMEAR?

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.grupo-utopia.com/blog/mt/mt-tb.cgi/491

Posted by: carla at July 12, 2005 07:41 PM

Posted by: tas at July 13, 2005 04:28 AM