Yes, this might be the over-cooked story of our time. The Times and the P-I have weighed in with predictable thoughts on their editorial pages.
Those looking for contrast should view a more balanced editorial from the Washington Post, including this:
Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.
The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.
Mark Steyn also adds a delightfully succinct summation of the bigger picture at the Corner:
But nevertheless an anti-war deputy secretary of an anti-war department leaking to an anti-war reporter the name of an anti-war analyst who got her anti-war husband a job with an anti-war agency is supposedly an elaborate "conspiracy" by Cheney, Rove and the other warmongers.
There are stories and issues in the body politic well worth lengthy debate and discussion. Arguing about whether Scooter Libby or several reporters better remember the details of their undocumented conversations years ago has little value. I for one would be hard pressed to remember specific details of my own job-related talks with journalists several years ago...and my job is infinitely less hectic and stressful than Libby's was.
We're long past the shelf-life on this one. Enough already.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 09, 2007 10:43 AM | Email ThisAny attempt to talk about Bush on this blog has been met with the response: "This is a Puget Sound blog...not a national one."
But somehow, posters are allowed to talk about national issues.
Guess the hypocrisy of the right knows no bounds...Gingrich is just another great example.
Posted by: StefanisWrong on March 9, 2007 11:12 AM1.) Gingrich wasn't involved in a lawsuit at the time that had direct bearing on his affairs.
2.) Gingrich didn't ask the woman he was involved with to lie under oath for him so he could avoid prosecution.
3.) Gingrich didn't lie under oath about knowing the woman.
4.) Gingrich didn't ask the "other woman" to try and convince other witnesses to lie under oath for him to avoid prosecution.
5.) Gingrich was not found guilty of obstructing justice and perjury for attempting to tamper with witnesses and lying to prosecutors under oath.
6.) Gingrich was not dis-barred for obstructing justice and perjury.
If you want to go off topic with a drive-by headline, at least know the facts.
Posted by: Ken on March 9, 2007 11:27 AMor that newbie WA senator fiddling with national issues in the WA Legis. while seemingly ignoring why his local constituents elected him?
Posted by: jimmie-howya-doin on March 9, 2007 12:15 PM"Mr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq."
Wison turned out to be right, and the Bush/Libby/Cheney/cherry-picked intel turned out to be wrong.
Sadaam didn't have any WMD stocks or programs. Specifically he didn't have a nuclear program, and the exagerated and fabricated allegations of aluminum tubes and Niger yellow cake turned out to be false.
Wilson was important because he was one of the first to call into question the honesty and integrity of the Bush WMD hyped case for war. The CIA had to backtrack and say that Niger claim wasn't justified and shouldn't have been made by Bush. That's why Wilson had to be discredited and punished. That's why Rove, Libby, Fleischer and others purposely leaked the classified identity of Plame as a CIA agent and placed in danger her cover and those she had worked with abroad. They had no shame.
I never understood why Bush made the Niger yellow cake claim. Sadaam already had 500 tons of the stuff and really didn't need more. The main evidence consisted of forged documents showing a Niger sale. Wilson and many others debunked that. So all they had to rely on was an Iraqi official's visit to Niger in 1999, and some unsourced statement from British intelligence (an oxymoron) that Iraq had "sought" uranium at some unspecified time in the past. This was the same British intel that claimed Sadaam could launch chemical weapons "on 45 minutes notice". Turned out these were rocket propelled grenades with a range of 300 yards. Oh dear how dangerous!! And it turned out not true anyway.
"Sought uranium". Totally hyped allegation. After the war our arms inspectors found that Iraq had never sought uranium from Africa.
The Wilson case opened the window on the Feith cherry picked intel and Cheney's pressure on the CIA.
And we should be getting some more Congressional hearings on this.
Posted by: chew2 on March 9, 2007 12:37 PMMr. Wilson was embraced by many because he was early in publicly charging that the Bush administration had "twisted," if not invented, facts in making the case for war against Iraq. In conversations with journalists or in a July 6, 2003, op-ed, he claimed to have debunked evidence that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger; suggested that he had been dispatched by Mr. Cheney to look into the matter; and alleged that his report had circulated at the highest levels of the administration.
A bipartisan investigation by the Senate intelligence committee subsequently established that all of these claims were false -- and that Mr. Wilson was recommended for the Niger trip by Ms. Plame, his wife. When this fact, along with Ms. Plame's name, was disclosed in a column by Robert D. Novak, Mr. Wilson advanced yet another sensational charge: that his wife was a covert CIA operative and that senior White House officials had orchestrated the leak of her name to destroy her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson.
The partisan furor over this allegation led to the appointment of special prosecutor Patrick J. Fitzgerald. Yet after two years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald charged no one with a crime for leaking Ms. Plame's name. In fact, he learned early on that Mr. Novak's primary source was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage, an unlikely tool of the White House. The trial has provided convincing evidence that there was no conspiracy to punish Mr. Wilson by leaking Ms. Plame's identity -- and no evidence that she was, in fact, covert.
Posted by: AndrewsDad on March 9, 2007 12:48 PMDarn that devil in the details...
Posted by: Ken on March 9, 2007 01:07 PMBut it doesn't undercut that Wilson was right about the nuclear claim and that Bush was wrong. There was no nuclear program, and a claim that Saddam had "sought" uranium was supported by credible intelligence and had been hyped.
Nor does it undercut the emerging facts that Bush cherry picked ultimately false intelligence to make his WMD case, and ignored all the weight of the accurate intelligence which cut against his case. And as we now know Bush was wrong.
Posted by: chew2 on March 9, 2007 01:29 PMLibby got railroaded by a stacked jury consisting of a book-peddling WaPost reporter and a moveon.org member, for remembering things a little worse than Russert. Simple as that.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen on March 9, 2007 01:29 PM
But it doesn't undercut that Wilson was right about the nuclear claim and that Bush was wrong. There was no nuclear program, and a claim that Saddam had "sought" uranium was supported by NO credible intelligence and had been hyped.
Read up on the issue. Wilson is a liar. He had an agenda in going to Niger, providing a basis to refute the yellow cake allegation, which has since been proven true by a Senate Intelligence Committee report. He did get sent there on the recommendation of his wife. He did not have the public disclosure restriction that anyone else would have had. He did blabber to the Times, and never filed an official report. The fact is, the CIA is loaded with Bush-haters like you, and Wilson was their stooge.
Name one legitimate world leader that did not believe that Iraq was seeking WMD. Saying that he did not have them depends on tense - tell the Kurds that he did not have them at one time.
Posted by: Concerned Citizen on March 9, 2007 01:39 PMJust how friggin' delusional do you have to be to continue to insist everybody else is wrong? The Washington Post - The Washington Post!!! - that noted 'mouthpiece' for the Bush Administration is spelling it out in as clear of terms as possible and you still won't accept that you're wrong.
You know, it must just suck to be so fixed in your version of events that nothing, nothing, can get through your thick skull.
And by the way, that mocked up intelligence you keep pointing to? The British came up with it and they still stand by it. But hey, they don't agree with your world view so they're wrong, too. Right?
It's like talking to a brick. Yet, I'd get further with the brick.
Posted by: jimg on March 9, 2007 01:45 PMOf course to the average demented liberal, the inconvenient fact that Niger's main product is uranium ore escapes them.
Maybe the Iraqi delegation was there to buy liberal talking points.
Posted by: Obi-Wan on March 9, 2007 01:55 PMYou Libs are a joke.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on March 9, 2007 02:09 PMI don't care.
But did anyone notice that Nancy Pelosi seems to be "decomposing" on the news day by day. Pretty soon she'll be some type of Nightmare on Elm creature-ess.
First, Sadaam already had 500 tons of yellow cake. Why did he need more? And so what if he did. What could he do with it? Nada. The IAEA inspectors found no evidence of a nuclear capacity in 2003. Iraq couldn't process if it had had it. So the whole uranium scare was hyped by Bush.
Then look at the evidence about the "Niger" yellow cake.
First, the primary evidence were documents showing a sale. They were FORGED. Big tell tale sign. Why would they be forged? Kind of like the Dan Rather memo. If the story was true why the need to forge the docs. But Cheney goes ape shit over this and wants to back it up so he goes to the CIA.
Second, Wilson and a General go to Niger. They find out that the uranium mines are under the control of the French Government and no uranium could be diverted. Wilson does hear a rumor about a visit of an Iraqi with some speculation that he might have been interested in uranium. (not the guy who came in 1999 though which you guys are talking about) But nothing to back it up. CIA concludes based on this and other evidence that there is no credible evidence to support an allegation that Saddam sought or obtained uranium from Niger or anywhere else in Africa.
Some Iraqi official does visit Niger in 1999. Long time ago from 2003. He could have been visiting for anything. Why uranium. Later after the war, if I recall correctly, he is interviewed and says he wasn't there to get uranium. The US arms inspectors after the war can find no evidence that Iraq sought any uranium.
British intelligence claims that they have a source probably from a foreign government. I.e. not one of their own agents or someone they have even interviewed. The source first claims that Iraq purchased yellow cake from Niger. Later that claim is weakened to "recently" "sought" uranium from "Africa" in the British white paper making the case for war. Tell-tale weasel words. When was "recently". How weak is "sought" almost as weak as he "wished for" a pony, oh I mean uranium. And what happened to "Niger". Give me a fucking break.
The British were sexing up the intel just like the Americans. That source has never been revealed. I wonder why? Then you get a Butler commission covering up their butts and stating that they stood by their source. Just like the Republican Senate committee found that there was no pressure on the CIA. Sure.
The CIA told the Brits that they shouldn't make that claim. Blair did anyway. But that claim never should have been made by Bush, since the CIA couldn't evaluate it's credibility. That's why they forced him to withdraw it, after Wilson broke open the story.
But who cares. So Saddam just possibly could have "sought" or "wished" for a pony oh I mean uranium at some unspecified time in the past.
Big deal.
Saddam already had 500 tons.
Wilson started the ball rolling on proving how hyped and false was the Bush WMD case.
Wilson didn't have the full picture, but he was right. The evidence for a Saddam nuclear capability was extremely weak and hyped. It never should have been presented as a case for war.
Posted by: chew2 on March 9, 2007 02:59 PMIs this the same British intelligence who claimed that Saddam could attack them with chemical weapons in 45 minutes? LOL.
The Brits are covering their butts. They admit that it wasn't their source, but from a third government. Pretty damn weak. They claim Iraq "sought". Pretty damn weak. They say from "Africa" pretty damn vague. They say "recently". Pretty damn vague again. Does that mean 1999?
But who cares about "sought". It was hedged and hyped to mislead the American public about some nuclear threat.
Saddam already had 500 tons of uranium.
Posted by: chew2 on March 9, 2007 03:07 PMBecause the ones he had were in containers sealed by the UN. It's hard to develop a nuclear program in secret if the UN finds out you broke the seals.
First, the primary evidence were documents showing a sale.
The primary evidence that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa was Wilson's investigation where he reported back to the CIA that they were.
He could have been visiting for anything. Why uranium.
What do you think Iraq wants to buy from Niger? Sand? It isn't like Niger has so many other enticing exports.
Later after the war, if I recall correctly, he is interviewed and says he wasn't there to get uranium.
Are you calling Joe Wilson a liar?
Then look at the evidence about the "Niger" yellow cake.
Who said anything about Niger? What makes you think the 16 words weren't about Congo?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/29/wirq329.xml
P.S. In your first post #4 you said "This was the same British intel that claimed Sadaam could launch chemical weapons "on 45 minutes notice". Turned out these were rocket propelled grenades with a range of 300 yards. " Funny, but I seem to remember Sadaam lobbing multiple Scud missiles into Israel during Gulf Was I, and that wasn't 300 yards away.
You are either ignorant or a liar.
Because the ones he had were in containers sealed by the UN. It's hard to develop a nuclear program in secret if the UN finds out you broke the seals.
First, the primary evidence were documents showing a sale.
The primary evidence that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa was Wilson's investigation where he reported back to the CIA that they were.
He could have been visiting for anything. Why uranium.
What do you think Iraq wants to buy from Niger? Sand? It isn't like Niger has so many other enticing exports.
Later after the war, if I recall correctly, he is interviewed and says he wasn't there to get uranium.
Are you calling Joe Wilson a liar?
Then look at the evidence about the "Niger" yellow cake.
Who said anything about Niger? What makes you think the 16 words weren't about Congo?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2002/09/29/wirq329.xml
http://www.mininova.org/tor/612593
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3635222/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
here is another one
http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3635143/Channel_4_-_The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle.avi
Here is the web page of the documentary.
http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/index.html
Posted by: Max on March 9, 2007 03:45 PM"You are either ignorant or a liar."
You are just ignorant. Saddam was forced to destroy all his Scuds by the arms inspectors. This was verified.
The Manchester Guardian reported the source of the "45 minute" WMD allegation. The "source" was talking about rocket propelled grenades which were marked with chemical warnings. The source turned out to be one of the Chalabi invented ones. No such grenades were ever discovered. And who cares if they were. No threat to anybody.
Yet the Brits publicized this as evidence of Saddams WMD threat to Britain and the world. The big lie or hype.
"First, the primary evidence were documents showing a sale.
The primary evidence that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium in Africa was Wilson's investigation where he reported back to the CIA that they were."
Well if that is true, then it was pretty damn weak evidence. LOL!
So Bush made the uranium claim based on Wilson's evidence. You could have fooled the CIA who told Bush that such a claim was not supported by the intelligence.
Geez you guys are grasping at straws. Should the US really go to war over some rumors that Saddam had "sought" some uranium. Even if he had, that was no threat to us.
He had no nuclear production or development capablity. That was verified by the IAEA and our inspectors after the war.
Wilson was right. Bush was wrong.
"Name one legitimate world leader that did not believe that Iraq was seeking WMD."
Name one military WMD that Saddam was alleged to have that was a threat to us. We could have wiped him off the map.
You guys are cowards if you really think Saddam was a threat to us. The UN had inspectors all over looking for WMDs before the war. They couldn't find any.
Posted by: chew2 on March 9, 2007 04:43 PMIn either case, Wilson was wrong. He told the CIA that Iraq sought to buy yellow cake, and told the New York Times that they didn't. One or the other was a lie.
Posted by: Michael on March 9, 2007 06:05 PMYou are just ignorant. Saddam was forced to destroy all his Scuds by the arms inspectors. This was verified.
Gee chew2, it wasn't like Saddam didn't have other illegal missles. And it wasn't like he was smuggling them out of the country. Banned weapons no less, ones that the UN didn't have on record. Meaning (and I'll spell this out for you):
SADDAM HAD SECRET WEAPONS PROGRAMS OPERATING WITHOUT UNMOVIC'S KNOWLEDGE!
The UN CONFIRMS that Saddam was actively developing - and exporting! - banned weapons without the UN's knowledge. Yeah, he's no threat when he actively circumvented UN resolutions, hid things from UN inspectors, and daily violated the terms of the cease fire.
Oh, and you really SHOULD get your facts straight! Saddam had 500 tons of unrefined uranium, and 1.8 tons of yellow cake. Not 500 tons of yellow cake.
Oh, and just to remind you, Saddam was seeking yellow cake, and the CIA, Wilson, and the UK all agreed about it. After all if Saddam's unrefined stock was under UN control, he's have to secure refined uranium - yellow cake - elsewhere...
Not to mention hundreds of WMDs found. Yeah, Saddam was a stand-up guy, yessiree!
But go ahead and ignore the facts! Never mind that the blatantly anti-Bush-administration BBC confirms the story, as does the anti-Bush-administration Guardian (in the above links). Just let your hatred of the current administration blind you. Be happy in your ignorance...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on March 9, 2007 07:11 PMSaddam had no nuclear program. That was confirmed by IAEA before the war, and our inspectors after the war. The US had no credible evidence priorthat he had a nuclear program, or that he was anywhere near getting such a capacity.
Saddam had no secret yellow cake.
If their was credible evidence that Saddam might have "sought" yellow cake and some unspecified time in the past, why did the CIA tell Bush to take that statement out of his speech. Why did the CIA say it was a "mistake" for Bush to make such a claim.
The answer is that the CIA didn't believe there was any credible evidence, despite the British bullshit. "Well founded" my ass. Butler was covering British dishonesty and incompetence.
The CIA was right. No yellow cake.
Remember after the war the US inspectors in Iraq checked out story and could find no evidence Saddam had sought yellow cake.
You righties keep drinking the koolaid. Nobody believes you anymore
Posted by: chew2 on March 9, 2007 09:09 PMDo you realize that you are now in a "yes he did, no he didn't" debate with people who are doing a hell of a good job at providing documentation?
We are on koolaid?? Where is your documentation? I see arguments...nothing else.
Wilson went back and forth, just like every poster child of the left.
Get over it. What is done is done, and a bunch of the moron's from your camp went along with it. Focus on the end game...not rehashing crap.
What's that site?...oh yeah. MOVEON!!!!
Posted by: chew2's a sucer on March 9, 2007 10:04 PMThanks for the support! You are almost as good at hyperbole as David Mathews!
All this attention really reminds me of my wonderful stay in Niamey. Too bad I actually did not venture outside of the capital, but hey, I didn't have any WMD search experience anyway. Besides, the government officials wouldn't lie to me would they? Didn't matter, since I had my NYT story mostly written even before I went.
Keep telling these warmongers my story about YC, even though the real story can be found at sites like this. Hope they don't find the facts. No prob, the MSM is on our side on that!
Well, Val and I are off for a ride before Libby gets frog-marched outa here. Should've been Rove or Dick, but I'll take what I can - Fitz couldn't find a real crime if it bit him on the butt. Glad for Scooter's bad memory!
Posted by: Joe Wilson on March 9, 2007 10:36 PMIf their was credible evidence that Saddam might have "sought" yellow cake and some unspecified time in the past, why did the CIA tell Bush to take that statement out of his speech. Why did the CIA say it was a "mistake" for Bush to make such a claim.
Did you even LOOK at the links I provided? the CIA said that the statement should have stayed IN the speech, and in fact all evidence pointed to the statement being accurate! It was only months AFTER the State of the Union that they started changing their minds...
Just try reading a bit, maybe you'll learn something... Of course, that would mean your nice little pre-conceived notions would be crushed! Yeah, better to remain ignorant of the facts, go with rantings of socialists in blogs and live that way.
Look at the record - look at the anti-Bush links above that CONFIRM the intelligence community believed Saddam had WMDs prior to the speech.
And guess what - I provided links showing that he DID have WMDs, and actively sought yellow cake.
You've provided rants, nothing more than a childish "nuh uh". ANYTHING to back up your statements? Barring that, we'll just accept your bowing out and wait your apology for being wrong. Or, as the left now defines, lying - after all, making a mistake is now categorized a lie (like Gore, Clinton - both of them, Kennedy, Pelosi, and most of the others "lied" about the concerns of Iraq and Saddam).
It's as pathetic as Dwight Pelz this morning on the Commentators, just stating "Bush lied!" with ZERO credibility, or facts, or validation. None, other than his belief.
The real problem with most of the moonbat left is that they are essentially fundamentalists of the religion of Socialist Fascism. Where they want the State to control EVERYTHING, and they want that State to be socialist at the minimum. Never mind the facts of reality, their faith will pull them through. Reality be damned, it's what they feel SHOULD be the truth, not what the truth really is that guides their day-to-day existence.
And many of them firmly believe that people who do NOT worship at their altar are not only misguided, but should be eliminated, or converted by the force of the State...
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on March 9, 2007 10:40 PMThe problem is that the Middle East allows preachers of hatred to continue to disseminate their lies and calls to violence.
Folks like chew2 who focus on the trees and leaving Iraq are missing the forest of radical Islam.
Posted by: Jeff B. on March 9, 2007 11:07 PM"Did you even LOOK at the links I provided? the CIA said that the statement should have stayed IN the speech, and in fact all evidence pointed to the statement being accurate! It was only months AFTER the State of the Union that they started changing their minds..."
Dan the CIA did not think the "evidence" you cited for Niger claim was sufficient or credible. When Wilson exposed the weakness of the Niger claim they made clear that they thought the Niger claim shouldn't have been made by Bush and the Whitehouse was forced to agree.
This is what the BBC and many other papers reported at the time:
"The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned.
Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.
On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm
Or this reported in the Conservative National Journal.
"The White House was largely successful in defusing the Niger controversy because there was no evidence that Bush was aware that his claims about the uranium were based on faulty intelligence. Then-CIA Director George Tenet swiftly and publicly took the blame for the entire episode, saying that he and the CIA were at fault for not warning Bush and his aides that the information might be untrue."
Just read my #16 above for my discussion of the evidence about the Niger uranium. If you have something specific then put it out there. No more general links.
But really can you claim that weak unsourced British claims that Iraq "sought" uranium from Africa at some unspecified time, and some speculative rumors about some Iraqi's interest in uranium are sufficient to go to war over. Too speculative and weak by far in my view. Not worht a war even if he did "seek" it.
Posted by: chew2 on March 10, 2007 12:09 PMThe official, Fortunat Lumu, and the colleague were arrested on Tuesday.
The move comes amid reports that a large quantity of uranium has gone missing in recent years in DRC.
State prosecutor Tshimanga Mukeba earlier told the BBC that an "important quantity" of uranium was taken from the atomic energy centre in the capital, Kinshasa, without revealing any figures.
DRC's daily newspaper Le Phare on Wednesday reported that more than 100 bars of uranium, as well as an unknown quantity of uranium contained in helmet-shaped cases, had disappeared from the centre as part of a vast trafficking of the material going back years.
Posted by: HW on March 10, 2007 08:23 PMThis is a 2007 story about a theft/sale of processed uranium from an old nuclear research center in the Congo. The one uranium mine in Congo has been closed/flooded since 1961. There is some freelance mining going on, but those miners can't produce much uranium ore.
If you're trying to claim this relates to the Niger uranium ore it doesn't. The weak and unsourced British claim that Saddam "sought" uranium from "Africa" only referred to Niger.
A British Parliamentary investigation found the following:
"90. The SIS's two sources reported that Iraq had expressed an interest in buying uranium from Niger, but the sources were uncertain whether contracts had been signed or if uranium had actually been shipped to Iraq. In order to protect the intelligence sources and to be factually correct, the phrase "Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was used. At the time of producing the dossier, nothing had challenged the accuracy of the SIS reports. [page 28]"
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/005211.php#1_1
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/reports/2003/isc-iwmdia_sep2003.pdf
Posted by: chew2 on March 10, 2007 09:53 PMhttp:// gorelied .notlong .com
Posted by: Sean on March 11, 2007 03:50 AM
Obiwan said this:
"Wilson even interviewed a former prime minister of Niger who stated that in 1999 an Iraqi delegation sought to expand commercial relations with Niger. The former pm said that he took it to mean purchasing yellowcake. Of course to the average demented liberal, the inconvenient fact that Niger's main product is uranium ore escapes them."
The CIA thought this was way too weak to make a claim that Iraq had "sought" uranium from Niger.
Even if "commercial relations" was somehow a hint at wanting to buy yellow cake, there was no follow up in the intervening years. This was too ambiguous and too old. Maybe Iraq wanted to sell oil to Niger on favorable terms. More importantly Wilson confirmed that the Niger uranium mines were controlled by France, and it would be very difficult/impossible to divert uranium.
And as I said after the war the US inspectors interviewed that Iraqi official who said uranium was not discussed, and further found no evidence that Iraq had ever sought uranium from Niger or anywhere else. Iraq had no reason to seek secret uranium. Why? Because the U.S. inspectors found that Iraq had NO NUCLEAR PROGRAM.
Posted by: chew2 on March 11, 2007 09:00 AMYou're so full of shit. I read that Annenberg link that you provided. And this is what it said:
"None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn't have been part of Bush's speech.
But what he said - that Iraq sought uranium - is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying."
Both the White House and CIA conceded that the Niger claim shouldn't have been made. The intel was too weak. Wilson was right and Bush was wrong.
But your link got much wrong. Wilson never claimed in his NYT article that Bush "lied". Only that the case for the Niger uranium had been discredited.
Wilson was right and Bush was wrong.
Your link also got wrong that Bush was entitled to rely on the 1999 visit as evidence that Saddam "sought" uranium. Why? Because the top level CIA folks said that that evidence was too weak. The CIA also said Bush shouldn't rely on the unevaluated claim of a foreign intelligence service.
The republican senate committee whitewash tried to claim that the 1999 Iraqi visit was somehow evidence that Iraq "sought" uranium based on the opinion of some low level CIA analyst. They were protecting the CIA and Bush. Bullshit. Wilson's analysis was right - no Niger uranium, and the CIA analyst's was wrong. This was proved by the US inspectors after the war - no evidence that Iraq sought uranium. The top level CIA folks also validated Wilson because they conceded that it was a mistake to make that uranium claim. So the low level CIA analyst's judgment was not sufficient to justify a claim that Iraq sought uranium from Niger and Bush never should have made that claim.
It is you who should read your own links with more care and not rely on the headline.
Posted by: chew2 on March 11, 2007 09:51 PMEric,
If you haven't seen it, Valerie Plame testified under oath this morning to Congress that she was covert when she was outed. I'm sure you'll post a correction...
