When is the Truth a Lie?
When it's politically convenient.
The President during his State of the Union Address said,
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa." So now the Democrats
are claiming that The President lied. The British stand by their
determination, which means the above statement was not only true when spoken,
but is still true today.
The Democrats claim that the Niger claim comes from forged
documents and as such The President lied, as opposed to made a mistake.
However, Tony Blair said, "The evidence that we had, that the Iraqi
government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from
Niger did not come from so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate
Monica Crowley, filling in for Sean Hannity on Hannity
and Colmes, reports: "Now I have a very good intelligence source, not
from the CIA, and he told me this, "That British intelligence had
wiretap information that confirmed, that those three countries were Niger, Gabon
and Mali. They were all approached by Iraqi intelligence for possible
sources of uranium." Now here's where the difficulty comes in, "The
Italians decided to get in on the act, they were the ones that bought the forged
documents and tried to pass them off to the United States and to the
British." The point is the British already had those intercepts
so the forged documents were just an add-on that didn't matter anyway."
How reliable is her source?
Only she and her source knows. I'm always dubious when a journalist
cites anonymous sources, unless that particular journalist has managed to build
up my trust in them. Monica Crowley has not done that, but neither has she
pissed away the bit that I give people automatically, and her account does agree
with the official stated position of Tony Blair. As such I'm willing to
give her the benefit of the doubt and trust her until she demonstrates, or let's
slip tells that cause me to stop.