Many on the Right seem to be claiming that Fitzgerald is backtracking and that the Administration did not send Libby out to lie about already discredited claims.

Below is the original wording in the Fitzgerald filing; below it, is the recent correction.

“Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, that a key judgment of the NIE held that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure’ uranium.”

“Defendant understood that he was to tell Miller, among other things, some of the key judgments of the NIE, and that the NIE stated that Iraq was ‘vigorously trying to procure’ uranium.”


And here is the link to the Key Judgments, if anyone is interested.

http://www.fas.org/irp/cia/product/iraq-wmd.html
. . . Iraq possesses significant phosphate deposits, from which uranium had been chemically extracted before Operation Desert Storm. Intelligence information on whether nuclear-related phosphate mining and/or processing has been reestablished is inconclusive, however. . .

. . . the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious. . .



Those on the Right are trying to claim that Fitzgerald screwed up and made a Claim that wasn’t true; and then issued a correction that vindicated the Administration.

‘a key judgment’ does not mean ‘THE Key Judgment. The NIE had many ‘key judgments.

For Fitzgerald to correct what Libby said vis-à-vis ‘some of the key judgments’ only says that the Administration lied even more. “Some Of” (with an ‘s’ on the end of key judgment) is more that “A”; and if they were lying when they claimed that a Single Key Judgment made the claim; what does that make them now that Libby actually claimed that more than one key judgment made the claim?


What does “I had a candy” mean versus “I had some of the candies”? Get the picture yet?


Does “some of the key judgments” indicate more than one?

And how is it somehow better for the Administration than the claim of “a key judgment”?

From your source:






Since uranium (or more centrifuges) would be necessary for an "expanding" nuclear program, it seems to follow that Iraq would seek uranium somewhere.

Does “some of the key judgments” indicate more than one?

I would say so. Why did Fitzgerald change his wording?

And how is it somehow better for the Administration than the claim of “a key judgment”?

Is Fitzgerald an administration apologist? I don't think it matters much, to be honest.

So Iran can now make ‘Glow In The Dark’ Mickey Mouse Watches with their newfound Nuclear Technology; but what does that have to do with the claim by some on the Right that Fitzgerald’s correction is somehow helpful to the Administration?

And I don’t recall the “Tubes”/”magnets”/etc. having anything to do with the “Procurement” of Uranium.


Are you sure you posted in the right Thread?


Probably realized that he didn’t include a reference to the ‘reference about more than one key judgment claiming that Iraq was trying to procure uranium’.

I have not given that any thought.

Does “some of the key judgments” indicate more than one?

Yes. Some is plural.

And how is it somehow better for the Administration than the claim of “a key judgment”?

In the corrected wording, the defendent doesn't say that the NIE argued that Iraq was persueing uranium. Instead, the corrected wording provides that the defendent made the assertion that Iraq was, but made no reference to a source.

Your link shows that the NIE refuted his assertion, meaning that if he said that it supported his assertion, that he would have been directly lieing.

If he didn't claim that the NIE supported him, then he is vindicated from a direct lie, but regardless, he was still giving out information that contradicted known intelligence if he made the Africa claim.