And what does that tell us?
And what does that tell us?
Actually, reading comprehension would tell you that Mayaki confirmed that a meeting regarding the purchase of uranium did not take place even though he ASSumed that that was what the real agenda of the Iraqis was. Just like you are ASSuming the same thing once more without a shred of evidence.
Which means there ended up being no attempt to buy yellowcake. It didn't happen despite all of the propaganda from this administration leading up to the war.
As usual, the lefties keep glossing over the point. The "attempt" was sending a delegation into a secret meeting in the first place.
But what came of that "attempt"? Hmm? Care to answer that one? That's the meat of this situation.
You mean the meeting where uranium was not permitted to be discussed? Does Mayaki have to be a super-sleuth to assert what the meeting was about as he did? I assume you know more about Niger and its exports than he does?
I'm sure you can't wait and I'm surprised your head hasn't already imploded sheerly from vacuuous anticipation.
The "fact" is that Mayaki looked upon the meeting as an "attempt" and any reasonable evaluation of the situation pretty much bears out precisely what Mayaki stated. You don't hold secret meetings arranged by a "businessman" (Who, btw, Wilson in his book later claimed Mayaki identified as Baghdad Bob) to discuss cowpeas and onions.
Well then someone is lying here and it's either Mayaki or Wilson:
:roll:
Originally posted by: KidViciou$
he says that since joe wilson got his job through his wife's influence, and since he made high-profile statements against the white house, he is the reason why her cover was blown, and that karl rove didn't know that she worked for the CIA
he's basically saying it's all joe wilson's fault. i told him, joe wilson could be a serial killer, the scum of the earth, AND the antichrist, and the only way people would have known valerie plame is that she is his wife, not a CIA agent. this is what fox news is programming their viewers to believe
Hard to determine who's lying there, isn't it? It's kind of like determining which nut to cut off.
You're comparing a standard and known meeting of foreign delegates to a meeting arranged covertly by an Iraqi "businessman" and supposedly held in secret. They are not comparible.
How does that change what it's in bold above? You're so interested in facts but you're just hoping and praying that you could go back in time and make something come out of that meeting that didn't happen in the first place to justify in some manner the invasion of Iraq and the smear campaign against Wilson.
Facebook
Twitter