Klaus,
Thats because the journalist article primarily rested on incorrect fact, while the Presidents case rested on a large number of facts that were true. I'm not critical of the President on the Niger case, because it was never the key reason for going into Iraq. It was simply another piece of information showing the danger of Saddam. Now that single piece of information is disputed, as does often happen with such intelligence matters. The number of US troops in Iraq is not a secret or the result of special intelligence that can be subject to change. To the journalist the US troop strength, was the key piece of information. For the President, the Niger case was a small piece of information, and not the main reason for going into Iraq.
RONO,
Because it was a small piece of a very large puzzle. Just because a puzzle is missing a small piece or its discovered that the piece does not fit, does not mean you can see the picture the rest of the puzzle makes.
Thats because the journalist article primarily rested on incorrect fact, while the Presidents case rested on a large number of facts that were true. I'm not critical of the President on the Niger case, because it was never the key reason for going into Iraq. It was simply another piece of information showing the danger of Saddam. Now that single piece of information is disputed, as does often happen with such intelligence matters. The number of US troops in Iraq is not a secret or the result of special intelligence that can be subject to change. To the journalist the US troop strength, was the key piece of information. For the President, the Niger case was a small piece of information, and not the main reason for going into Iraq.
RONO,
Because it was a small piece of a very large puzzle. Just because a puzzle is missing a small piece or its discovered that the piece does not fit, does not mean you can see the picture the rest of the puzzle makes.