Now, shall we move forward?

1. I never claimed EP is absolute, and give a zip about the case you reference. Both sides have lawyers with spouses, kids and credit card bills, let's let'em earn some long green.

2. Something I learned long ago was to never start a fight when I had gotten what I wanted. I seem to remember that Rice was handled quite politely.

3. So, if it goes to court, I really don't know what the outcome will be, and I don't believe you do either. What ever it is it will likely be so far into the future that no one will care.

4. I do find it interesting that the Demos, fresh from their victory in saving the fillibuster and what that has reaped them, are interested in trying to further weaken the office of the President.

  I think a very good argument that placing the communications in an "external" media would constitute implied waiver. The purpose of EP is very analogous to the purpose of the attorney-client privilegs (to promote open and unfettered communication in cicumstances where it is thought assurance of confidentiality promote that goal).

  A-C privilege does not apply  if the communications are not conducted in private and intended to be confidential; and,  it is well-established that if a 3rd party who is not an agent is present for A-C communications, or the substance of those communications was otherwise voluntarily disclosed,  the communications are not privileged.

   Should that same principle apply to EP? If so, does voluntary placement of communications in a transmission or storage media accessible to others constitute a 3rd party disclosure sufficient to extinguish an EP claim.

The fact that others want to use old non-relevant evidence to say Bush was right, doesn't make it relevant to that issue. It may have relevance as you are now arguing to show how weak this line of argument is.

But that is a entirely different matter. It is true that which is not relevant to prove A may be relevant to prove B.

I may have been too tunnel visioned focusing on Claim A, but my original statement was correct. It wasn't relevant to disprove Bush's claim that Saddam recently sought....

Claim B (the fact that the Bush supporters are using a possible four year old,  pre President Clinton bombing, atttempt to make their case) that it is relevant to show how weak the Bush supporter argument is also correct. But it has nought to do with my original statement - not relevant to rebut Bush's case.

Remember Bush's case wasn't that Saddam sought yellowcake in 1999. Bush's case was "Saddam recently". The grasping of this straw (the alleged 1999 attempt) by Bush supporters (aside from being hilariously inept) is a new and different claim.

Finally, you accused me of playing Jm game with this- being off track and chasing rabbits . I think I have amply disproven that claim. May I suggest you look at this?

The fact that Bush supporters, both in and out of the Senate are hilariously and ineptly grasping at this straw as though they were in the middle of the ocean and it was a life raft doesn't make it relevant. If anything it shows how weak and tenuous the argument being pushed by Bush supporters is. I include you as a Bush supporter. It is also a classic bait and switch.

1. It was "recent" as claimed by Bush.
   
2. Iraq has its own yellowcake and no need to import any.

Recent rapid global price increases have led to higher revenues for Niger's uranium sector, which provides approximately 30% of national export proceeds. The nation enjoyed substantial export earnings and rapid economic growth during the 1960s and 1970s after the opening of two large uranium mines near the northern town of Arlit. When the uranium-led boom ended in the early 1980s, however, the economy stagnated, and new investment since then has been limited. As a result of higher world prices, Niger's two uranium mines-- COMINAK's open pit mine and SOMAIR's underground mine--are expected to increase uranium output in 2007. These two companies are owned by a French-led consortium and operated by French interests; however, Canadian and Chinese companies are currently studying the feasibility of opening mines in Niger. Output from any potential new mines probably could not occur until the end of 2008 at the earliest.

The uranium ore is mined by the French & turned into yellowcake & exported through Benin.

The fabrications of the yellowcake fantasy are sometimes shored up with a dummy version that either government officials or shady business folks in Niger were going to attempt some form of off-the-books deal to sell either ore or the processed stuff.

(U) On February 18, 2002, the embassy in Niger disseminated a cable which reported that the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal "provides sufficient detail to warrant another hard look at Niger's uranium sales [snip] "we should not dismiss out of hand the possibility that some scheme could be, or has been, underway to supply Iraq with yellowcake from here." The cable also suggested raising the issue with the French, who control the uranium mines in Niger, despite France's solid assurances that no uranium could be diverted to rogue states.

First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium.

(U) On March 1, 2002, INR published an intelligence assessment, Niger: Sale of Uranium to Iraq Is Unlikely. The INR analyst who drafted the assessment told Committee staff that he had been told that the piece was in response to interest from the Vice President's office in the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. The assessment reiterated 1NR's view that France controlled the uranium industry and "would take action to block a sale of the kind alleged in a CIA report of questionable credibility from a foreign government service

(U) The INR analyst's meeting notes and electronic mail (e-mail) from other participants indicate that INR explained its skepticism that the alleged uranium contract could possibly be carried out due to the fact that it would be very difficult to hide such a large shipment of yellowcake and because "the French appear to have control of the uranium mining, milling and transport process, and would seem to have little interest in selling uranium to the Iraqis."

Uranium, in this usage is a raw ore.  Yellowcake is a processed form of the ore.  The stuff belongs to the French consortium.

Niger has no uranium to sell.

The SSCI report has some fabrications in it, often attributed to Sen. Roberts & his staff.  It also has some "back & forth" types of "he said, they said" that is attributed to committee staff members.

Wilson's "version" of the tales is borne out somewhat at the Libby trial in a memo from Carl Ford at INR, State Dept., to Armitage.

Subsequent events have also indicated that Wilson knew more about the Italian forged documents than the "reports officer" would concede to the senators or to the committee staff.  Contrary to the denial by the CIA official, the documents were at the meeting, Wilson had been given an "operational clearance" and they were discussed.

The CIA has told Committee staff that the former ambassador did not have a "formal" security clearance but had been given an "operational clearance" up to the Secret level for the purposes of his potential visit to Niger.

The SSCI states that the CIA report claims:

Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,(redact) businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted "expanding commercial relations" to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that "although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the UN sanctions on Iraq."

Wilson told the committee staff:

First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium. The intelligence report described how the structure of Niger's uranium mines would make it difficult, if not impossible, for Niger to sell uranium to rouge nations, and noted that Nigerien officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium

Again, Wilson made clear to the staff that Iraq DID NOT approach Niger to buy uranium

You choose not to read the sentences that show Wilson was truthful, the CIA reports officer was disingenuous & evasive & Sen. Roberts was trying to maintain cover for the 16 word lie in the State of the Union address.

Read what Wilson said.

First, the former ambassador described his findings to Committee staff as more directly related to Iraq and, specifically, as refuting both the possibility that Niger could have sold uranium to Iraq and that Iraq approached Niger to purchase uranium.