Eriposte,
Why do you, Marc Grossman, Jason Leopold, Murray Waas, Fitzgerald, and other involved leakers on this story hate America so much?
Aren't you tired of supporting the terrorists by exposing the lies, outright distortions, and obfuscations of our dear fearless AWOL leader and his Yellow Republican minions?
If you only slept with the flag wrapped around you at all times with a Cheney teddy bear by your side and Coulter's Treason book underneath your pillow, I think you'd feel better and see things a bit more clearly.
I shall pray for you and hope that your wires will soon be tapped. Perhaps then you will come around.
Posted by MisterOpus1 at April 18, 2006 10:31 AMIf the beginning of a paragraph is marked "Secret," as it was when Valerie Wilson was mentioned, that means ALL the information in the paragraph is secret. Any other explanation makes absolutely no sense; i.e., how would you know what informatin is classified and what is unclassified in the paragraph.
Posted by Sally at April 18, 2006 10:56 AMSally is completely correct. Folks who have ever been cleared for classified information know that if they receive such a memo with "portion marking" (that is, each paragraph has a classification), the entire paragraph must be assumed to be classified at that level.
Up is down and left is right in the new Rape-publican world...
Posted by Lukeness at April 18, 2006 11:57 AMNice find on the Brit/IAEA negotiations, eR -- that really is very significant. You link it up aptly with SSCI.
It seems clear that the negotiations with the British concerned the September/02 intelligence (the, ahem, "separate" intelligence). If so, the simple fact of the negotiations, plus Powell's subsequent unwillingness to use the uranium claims in his speech (and the CIA's later retraction, etc. etc.), are almost conclusively damning.
A quick note on Smith's claim about a/the Zawahie letter being the September intelligence. The Sept/03 Taylor Report quite clearly states that there were two sources for the Sept. dossier's uranium claim, that they were "independent", that one was received in June and the other in September, and that only one of those sources was "based on documentary evidence". We know the June intelligence was the forgeries or SISMI's summaries thereof. Seems to me Smith's sources are lying through their teeth.
Posted by at April 18, 2006 02:25 PMSorry, that was me.
Posted by KM at April 18, 2006 02:26 PMKM, good catch! I remembered that yesterday and told myself I need to take a closer look at it to see if there was a contradiction there....and you got it :-)
Let me do an update on the post this wekk. Thanks again!
Posted by eriposte at April 18, 2006 09:35 PM