Angle baselessly claimed that Wilson told the CIA that Iraq "tried, but failed" to get uranium from Niger
SUMMARY: Jim Angle baselessly
claimed that Joe Wilson
had reported to the CIA
that "the Iraqis had indeed tried, but failed" to obtain uranium from Niger. According to a
CIA report, a former Nigerien prime minister had
"interpreted" an offer to meet with Iraqis on "expanding
commercial relations" to mean that "Iraq wanted to discuss uranium
yellowcake sales." But the
report indicates only that Wilson told the CIA of the former prime minister's
interpretation and provides no evidence that Wilson endorsed that view himself.
On the February 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume, Fox News chief Washington correspondent Jim Angle baselessly claimed that when former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV returned from his early 2002 trip to Niger to investigate reports that Iraq had recently acquired uranium from that country, he reported to the CIA that "the Iraqis had indeed tried, but failed." Angle asserted that this conflicted with what Wilson later told the public -- that he had found no evidence to support those reports. Similarly, on the February 7 edition of Special Report, Angle claimed that "Wilson's report to the CIA confirmed Iraq was trying to obtain uranium, but Wilson had not publicized that." As Media Matters for America has documented, according to a March 8, 2002, report by a CIA agent describing Wilson's findings, the former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Mayaki, had "interpreted" an offer to meet with Iraqis on "expanding commercial relations" to mean that "Iraq wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." The report, however, indicates only that Wilson told the CIA of Mayaki's interpretation and provides no evidence that Wilson endorsed Mayaki's view himself. As Media Matters has also noted, according to the July 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report about prewar intelligence on Iraq, Wilson said that Mayaki never confirmed the meaning of "expanding commercial relations."
Moreover, while the CIA interpreted Wilson's findings as confirmation of Iraq's supposed efforts to acquire uranium from Niger, as Media Matters has noted, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) interpreted his findings as confirmation that the Niger claim was not credible. An INR analyst, however, "said that the 'report could be read in different ways,' " according to the July 2004 Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Ultimately, subsequent reporting and investigations have found no evidence to support the allegation that Iraq tried to obtain uranium. In particular, the CIA's Iraq Survey Group (ISG), which investigated Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs after the March 2003 invasion, stated in its 2004 final report that "ISG has not found evidence to show that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991 or renewed indigenous production of such material -- activities that we believe would have constituted an Iraqi effort to reconstitute a nuclear weapons program."
Angle also asserted on February 6 that it was a "fact" that Wilson's wife, then-CIA operative Valerie Plame, had "sent Wilson on his mission" to Niger. Angle said this was "one of" the "facts" that "Vice President [Dick] Cheney wanted to get ... out" in response to Wilson's claims that his findings in Niger did not back up Bush's 2003 State of the Union claim that the Iraqi government had sought uranium from Africa. However, as Media Matters has noted, Angle's "fact" -- that Plame "sent" Wilson to Niger -- is highly disputed. In particular, unnamed intelligence officials have been quoted in news reports claiming that the CIA -- not Plame -- selected Wilson for the mission, and CIA officials have reportedly disputed the portions of a classified State Department memo indicating Plame suggested Wilson for the mission.
From the February 6 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
ANGLE: Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald played another four and a half hours of [former vice presidential chief of staff I. Lewis] Scooter Libby's grand jury testimony today, in which he took Libby through one conversation after another, in an effort to lay out what Fitzgerald sees as a scheme to discredit former Ambassador Joe Wilson, who had written an op-ed accusing the administration of twisting the intelligence on Iraq.
In the tapes from the grand jury, Fitzgerald asks Libby: "Is it fair to say there was an effort to undermine his credibility as an expert?" Libby: "I don't know about that. My view was if we could get the facts about what he had done, that would be more than sufficient, and that the CIA had not accepted what he had done as refuting the point."
The point was whether or not Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium in Africa, in this case in Niger. Joe Wilson's leaks to reporters about his trip, and his own op-ed, claimed there was no evidence Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium. But in his report to the CIA, he said the Iraqis had indeed tried, but failed. And a CIA officer who reviewed the report later told the Senate Intelligence Committee that he "judged that the most important fact in the report was the Nigerien officials believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium." Important because it confirmed intelligence reports from other governments, something Wilson left out of all of his public comments.
Libby explained how this was seen as an attack on the administration that had generated considerable discussion at the White House and that Vice President Cheney wanted to get all the facts out. One of those facts was that the vice president hadn't sent Wilson on his mission, his wife, who worked at the CIA, had. Libby freely told investigators he thought he learned that from NBC's Tim Russert on July 10th, but found a document showing the vice president himself first mentioned it weeks before.
From the February 7 edition of Fox News' Special Report with Brit Hume:
ANGLE: Libby had called Russert to complain about what he saw as inaccurate coverage by Chris Matthews on MSNBC's Hardball, suggesting the vice president knew all about Wilson's trip but disregarded his findings to exaggerate the threat from Iraq. Though Wilson's report to the CIA confirmed Iraq was trying to obtain uranium, but Wilson had not publicized that. Russert said Libby was agitated about Wilson's claims and that Matthews was throwing Libby's name around.
the old wilson was sent by his wife story, which would have been impossible because she was in no position to do so. and, one more time, what is the glamor of a long plane ride to some dusty central african capital, to spend most of the time sitting in some second rate hotel? what was there to be gained by either plame or wilson?
I am afraid your questions require more common sense than the average Washington news correspondent can muster.
"what was there to be gained by either plame or wilson?"
Isn't it OBVIOUS? There was a large element of liberal traitors within the CIA (and the State Department, too!) who were trying to sabotage America's efforts to combat Islamic terrorism by preventing the invasion of Iraq. I heard this directly from Rush Limbaugh so I know it must be true. Damn liberals...
Hannity was trying to make the same argument with Victoria Toensing on his radio show a while back. Toensing was saying the CIA was out to get the Bush Administration. There is a little bit of what conservatives may describe as "logic" on the link below. Unfortunately much of what Toensing says is either discredited or unsopported supposition.
My personal favorite wingnut, Zell Miller said this idiocy:
Would you agree that she recommended him to go?
if you are asking me, she may have said he had some expertize in this area. and he did. he had been an ambassador to africa and had connections. that still does not explain what they had to gain by this. the right wing carries on like he got a two week junket in hawaii out of it.
I don't know about that, I just think the right is trying to establish that she had some influence on him going on the trip.
and if she did? what was their gain?
Their gain was to undermine Wilsons credibility on the Op-Ed that he wrote for the NYT which many on the right disputed. That's my understanding.
i wrote before what was the wilson's gain. even if she recommended him, how does that reduce the credibility of what he has to say?
Apparently Wilson had denied that she was behind it. So the right was trying to show that his denial was incorrect. If I could use Powerline as an example of a mainstream conservative blog (which in my opinion it is) then they summarize it this way: http://powerlineblog.com/archives/007135.php#007135
They have many more posts on this issue but this one they attempt to prove Wilsons lies (in their opinion).
you're arguing word definitions again. it was the cia that sent him. she said he could have possible information. she did not have the power to make the decision. and your link says this at the bottom: "update, the post reporter apparently misread the intelligence committe report. it was iran not iraq that tried to buy 400 tons of uranium in 1998." so basing a large part of the article on an incorrect assumption goes nowhere with me. but i still need an explanation. since it seems to be the right wing contention, what did the wilsons gain from this? tell me their gain.
I don't think Wilson had anything to gain by going, other than just doing his job. After the fact, it's my understanding that Wilson wanted to distance himself from the famous 16 words in the State of the Union Address about Iraq attempting to buy yellowcake. I think there was a lot of CYA going on from everyone involved when the WMD house of cards crumbled. So he wrote the Op-Ed against the President published in the NYT and the right didn't appreciate what they considered to be back-pedaling on Wilsons part regarding his findings.
number one, wilson did not need to cover his ass. no one knew who he was until he wrote his op-ed. no one was blaming him for anything. number two, he did no backpedaling in that op-ed, because he never said in his report there was any proof that iraq had attempted to buy yellowcake. speculation yes, but proof, none. what we do have proof of, in the downing street memo, is that the bush administration was determined to "fix the facts around the policy" in it's rush to go to war.
Yes, one mans proof is another mans speculation.
whatever that means
What it means is that you consider the Downing Street Memo to be proof of something but not everybody agrees with that.
and why do you disagree it's not proof? the head of british intelligence went to washington, met with his counterparts, and came back and told a cabinet level meeting that the decision to go to war had been made, but the proof of wmd was thin, so the "facts were being fixed aroung the policy".
I would call it evidence but not proof. It is his interpretation and recollection of what was said at the meeting. It is clearly important, but not definitive proof, IMO.
That's fair, but it makes it more than mere speculation I think.
well, i would think if the head of british intelligence cannot get the point of what he's being told, then who can?
I think that is a problem I have with the right-wing account. Wilson was the first person to my knowledge that questioned the 16 words. This implies that he wasn't "back-peddling" as some have claimed, but sincere whistle-blowing. If Wilson had played along and kept his mouth shut, his name would likely have never come up at all. It would have all been forgotten or swept under the rug.
It is pretty clear tha Wilson was sticking his neck out on this. He may have been a little naive as to the lengths this observably dishonorable administration would go to protect themselves by smearing Wilson and outing his wife.
The right contends that the op-ed he wrote contradicted his initial report. That was where they got upset about it.
so where did it contradict his original report?
I believe the argument is this (taken from the Powerline link from above):
So: what Wilson actually told the CIA, contrary to his own oft-repeated claims, is that he was told by the former mining minister of Niger that in 1998, Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from that country, and that Iraq's overture was renewed the following year. What Wilson reported to the CIA was exactly the same as what President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: there was evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.
Recall Wilson's famous op-ed in the New York Times, published on July 6, 2003, which ignited the whole firestorm over the famous "sixteen words" in Bush's State of the Union speech. In that op-ed, Wilson identified himself as the formerly-unnamed person who had gone to Niger to investigate rumors of a possible uranium deal between Iraq and Niger. Here are the key words in Wilson's article:
It was this flat-out lie about what Wilson learned in Niger, and what he reported to the CIA upon his return, that fueled the "sixteen words" controversy and led to the publication of Wilson's best-selling account, titled, ironically, The Politics of Truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mefirst said, the bottom of the post indicated a correction that the country referred to in 1998 was Iran not Iraq. But it says nothing about it not referring to Iraq in 1999.
Sorry this got posted at the end of the thread by mistake.
put it in letters five feet high. there was no definite proof that iraq tried to buy yellowcake. there was no definite offer. that is not what the minister said. he said he thought that is what they might be trying to do, but there was no definite offer. again speculation.
No in his report he said that there was no way TO buy uranium from Niger since their entire Uranium industry is under international control, he said that Iraq had offered trade talks which the Foriegn minister ASSUMED was about Uranium. However he ALSO said they HAD the talks and Iraq never mentioned Uranium. His report definitly did NOT say Iraq even TRIED to get Uranium from Niger only included the part about the trade talks which the CIA INTERPRETED at the time as corroboration while the State Dept Intelligence arm disagreed.
That's an excellent point. Either way the republicans go with this it doesn't add up. If it's just a case of backpedalling, why? If the report really says what Powerline said, that there was a real reason to believe the "16 words", then what's Wilson's concern? If he was just doing his job, and the 16 words were justified (George Tenet admitted they weren't, of course), then as you astutely pointed out there's no CYA to be done. So that leads us to option 2;malicious intent. If this was some conspiracy to undermine a legitimate case for war, then why would he put anything in his report that he would later supposedly contradict? Surely he would just file a completely negative finding, no evidence, no rumors, no nothing.
Wilson did get a Best Seller out of the deal. I'm just saying....
This is something I don't get. Is everyone who writes a book about something guilty of some nefarious motive? Or is it just liberals. That is the problem with the selective "logic" of the Powerline and their ilk.
Actually, I forgot that Wilson was formerly a Republican who converted to Democrat after the SOTUS. I don't know if he is a liberal or not. He simply is a fly in the ointment of the neocon war machine.
I was not aware of Wilsons political affiliations. Very interesting.
and was acting ambassador to iraq in the runup to the gulf war. also praised by poppy bush for his actions in that perieod.
period
Sorry Bruce. I looked up some info and I was wrong about a few things. According to Wiki's take on Wilson's book, Wilson was raised in a Republican household. According to newsmeat Wilson has given money to Al Gore ($1000), G.W.Bush ($1000) and John Kerry ($2000) along with some money for Ted Kennedy (D) -MA and Ed Royce (R) -CA amongst others.
Wilson says he voted for Gore in 2000. He describes himself as a political centrist in the article.
He did make it clear in the wiki article that "after his tangle with the current administration, he admits 'it will be a cold day in hell before I vote for a Republican, even for dog catcher.'"
I think it is pretty clear that Wilson wasn't the political hack that the right is making him out to be. At least he wasn't before the Administration released the hounds on him and his family.
That denial is NOT incorrect according to the CIA. She wasnt BEHIND it. She didnt INITIATE it. She was ASKED if he would be a good choice which he obviously was and said so. The denial she was BEHIND it is accurate.
Bruce,
I think the influence Plame had on whether her husband went to Niger was similar to the influence the phone book has on which pizza place I order from.
The CIA needed someone with Wilson's qualifications to go to Niger. I don't know how Plame presented the information, but she would have to be an idiot not to mention her husband as someone with the required qualifications.
Whether Plame mentioned her husband or recommended him is moot. It wasn't like this was some prime assignment in gay Paris. This was Niger. Not exactly a hotspot for tourism and liesure.
Would you agree that she recommended him to go?
Yea... and that shows what exactly? I've read the accounts of responsible writers who investigated the matter and spoken to the people involved and what they say is this... Cheney demanded (I say 'demanded" because I doubt Cheney ever "requets" anything) that the CIA investigate raw intelligence data he had read concerning an alleged deal between Saddam and Niger for the acquisition of "yellowcake". Cheney's demand went back to the counterproliferation department at the CIA where Valerie Plame worked. When Plame and her bosses discussed how to go about investigating the allegation they determined that at least part of the investigation should include sending someone to Niger to question officials there. Valerie Plame indicated that her husband, Joe Wilson, not only had the technical understanding of the issues but that he actually knew personally some of the people that the CIA should talk to. Her superiors told her to bring Wilson in so they could talk to him. A meeting was arranged and Plame brought Wilson to CIA headquarters. As the various CIA analysts began assembling Plame stuck around (I believe at the request of her boss) long enough to introduce her husband to some of the CIA analysts. Then she left before the meeting even actually began. She was not present when the CIA interviewed her husband to determine whether he was the right guy to send to Niger. Apparently they thought he was well-suited for the task. So, yes, Valerie Plame "recommended" her husband. But, again, what sort of nefarious inference are you drawing from that?
I was really just wondering if that was a point of contention because so much of the Plame-Wilson Niger episode is in dispute. Your post is the way I understand it to have happened.
What I would agree with is what the CIA said that her boss asked her if he would be a good choice to go, and when she said he would that he told her to write write something up
You are allowed to believe the former Nigerien prime ministers statement and ignore all contrary eveidence it you want to. Doesn't make you good or wise or anything but in the world of opinon you are allowed this.
What you can't do is lie by misprepresenting what Joe Wilson actually reported and concluded.
Angle is a professional LIAR otherwise known as a Fox News chief Washington correspondent.
You also have to ignore HIS statement that they HAD those talks and Iraq never mentioned Uranium
This is such bullsh*t...
And is THIS why we invaded Iraq? The impression I got at the time was that Saddam already had the nuclear bomb and his finger was twitching on the detonator.
That's your delusional reflection. It was never stated by the administration that "Hussein had nuclear weapons and an itchy trigger finger".
but they did state that iraq had obtained aluminum tubes that could only be used for nuclear purposes. our own scientists said different.
According to Condoleeza Rice: "The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
Even in the absence of any clear evidence, the administration was definitely fear-mongering and exaggerating the threat to sell the war.
"And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
- Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, March 16, 2003
This time I'm on Wesley's side. No one ever said that Saddam had his finger on the trigger.
I think the way the story went was that it would take 45 minutes for him to launch the nukes.
Are you trying to sex things up in here?
Come on, what does we cant wait for a Mushroom cloud mean to YOU?
It was never stated by the administration that "Hussein had nuclear weapons and an itchy trigger finger".
LOL!! Gee... then I wonder how so many of us got that impression. Maybe it was when Bush suggested that Saddam was acquiring yellowcake uranium from Niger? Or maybe it was when Rice and others asked if we wanted confirmation in the form of a mushroom cloud? Maybe it was the lies and distortions Cheney was slinging about how we "knew" what Saddam was up to? All I know is the hair on the back of my neck stood up because the impression the administration gave me was that we had to act quickly because Saddam was able and ready to hit us. That's when I said "Then let's go get him..." I'm not alone on this, either... millions of other Americans I suspect would say the same thing. If you continue to trust this administration after the dishonest way they led us into a war of choice, not of necessity, perhaps you are the one who is delusional.
- All I know is the hair on the back of my neck stood up -irony
Being scared spitless is no excuse for making up information. You believed what you wanted to...the administration never said Hussein had nuclear weapons.
In fact, for years and years, most leaders were in lockstep that he was a dangerous man and a threat to our security. This includes Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Biden...to name a few.
...to name a few.
...who all supported the removal of Saddam in the late 1990s through INTERNAL means...that is, by assisting the people of Iraq in an internal revolt. What changed? Hmmm... maybe it had something to do with what Bush and Cheney said.
In fact, for years and years, most leaders were in lockstep that he was a dangerous man and a threat to our security. This includes Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Biden...to name a few.
- wesley / Thursday February 8, 2007 09:44:59 PM EST
Rice and Powell were claiming in 2001 that we had contained Saddam. And all the people you mentioned in your post were urging this feckless president to continue the inspection process and he told them to go f*ck themselves and commenced bombing."In fact, for years and years, most leaders were in lockstep that he was a dangerous man and a threat to our security. This includes Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, Gore, Biden...to name a few." --wesley
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Tired. Tired. Tired. It doesn't mean they agreed 100% with the way the Bush administration conducted the lead-up to the war or would have done the same thing had they been the leaders at the time.
In fact Gore was in open dissent at the time of the invasion. Most of the other Senators expressed some reservations about the Bush Administration at the time. Should they have stopped the war? The ones who had a vote should have voted "no" IMO. For that, I will not support them nor forgive them. I don't begrudge them for talking tough about Saddam though. As that was pretty much obligatory political chatter and sabre rattling of the time.
There is more than only one way (the way the Bush Administration proceeded) to have proceeded. Your argument disingenuously ignores other valid (and likely better) possibilities towards achieving the goal of regime change in Iraq as well. Was invasion the only option?
"Was invasion the only option?"
Iraq was a test tube experiment hatched by Bush's neocon brain trust in the 1990s:stabalize the Middle East by spreading democracy through pre-emptive war... and Iraq is first. (Forget that Bush promised in his 2000 Presidential campaign that the U.S. military would not be used for nation building.) It was neocon theory... just like Donald Rumsfeld's theory that Saddam could be toppled with a minimal force and there would be no aftermath. (Oooops... forgot about what happens the day after we overthrow Saddam.) Americans have died as a result of untested, ideological, hair-brained neocon theories. Yea... let's give a big round of applause to The American Enterprise Institute for fathering these wonderful theories that have gotten so many Americans killed and maimed...
Not only tired by almost entirely irrelevant (if "almost" isn't giving it too much credit).
The issue isn't what people might have thought about Iraqi WMDs in 1996 or 1998 or 2000 but what could credibly be argued in the period from the fall of 2002 to March 2003, a time when weapons inspectors were finding nothing despite being armed with what the US insisted was its "best intelligence."
Even if you wanted to insist at that point that it hadn't been proved that Iraq was completely clean, it could not be credibly argued that Iraq had any militarily-meaningful WMD capability.
Hey Wesley,
go back to school kid. Yes it was recognised that Hussein was dangerous, but he was contained. He was no immediate threat and there were plenty of people screaming that from the rooftops before this ill-concieved military adventure that the Cowboy Idiot from the White House embarked upon. SOME people can be forgiven for having the wool pulled over their eyes in the lead up to the Iraq war - anyone who still says that it was the right thing to do is suffering an acute case of criminal ignorance - what's more they'll need to spend a long time scrubbing before they get the blood off their hands. Everyone in the administration and the State Dept. knew that it was a lie when Bush mentioned Saddam's so-called attempt to obtain uranium from Africa in his SOTU address - it has since been proven a lie and anyone who tries to muddy the waters on this issue should hang their heads in shame because they are obviously an enemy of truth and justice.....most likely because they don't believe that's the American way - Patriots my A$$ - Brit Hume and his co-horts deserve a horrible infection on their lips for all the puckering they've done to these reprehensible liars. This isn't a game you know - kids go off to die for these lies. They make the ultimate sacrifice for their country and all they ask is - don't make us do it unless it is ABSOLUTELY necessary - Lies that get people killed - there is no other word for it -MURDER!!!
Really. Huh, funny how so many of us thought he did then, what a wacky co-inkydink. Guess we shouldn't have taken any meaning from his speech on Iraq in 2002:
"Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." GWB, Cincinatti 2002
Or this one from Rice:
"RICE: The problem here is that there will always be some uncertainty about how quickly he (Hussein) can acquire nuclear weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud." Condolezza Rice, CNN Sept. 2003
Deny reality all you like. It's what you people do. But don't expect the rest of us to mindlessly bleat along with you sheep, OK?
Not exactly they just said he had reconstituted Nuclear weapons program, and that we couldnt wait for a Mushroom cloud over New York. Splitting hairs. You are technically correct but if you take one more small step and say they werent engaged in nuclear fearmongering THAT would be a lie.
And...
If Bush and Cheney were not attempting to convince the American public that Saddam posed an imminent nuclear threat, why was it so pressing to strike him with all due haste? In hindsight, I was wrong to think Bush is such a dumb cowboy... in his campaign for war he spoke carefully crafted words that people like you can later parse in order to argue "Well.. Bush didn't specifically say that Saddam was armed with nuclear weapons or that he he might attack us." Bush got his message across loud and clear... an exaggerated message designed to strike fear in every American in order to fulfill the great experiment of his neocon brain trust. We were fools to believe him... the people who still believe him are worse than fools.
First you claim he had nuclear weapons and an itchy trigger finger...now you back off and claim that the threat was promoted as imminent...what next?
Don't blame others for your own perceived poor judgement. It was everyone else's fault that you believe the way you do...lol.
Convictions?...a trait worth looking into.
"...now you back off and claim that the threat was promoted as imminent..."
Uhhh, not exactly following you there... I've backed off of nothing. Perhaps your reading comprehension skills match your integrity. Maybe your bullsh*t flies among your friends but suggest to any rational person that Bush and Cheney did not intentionally scare the scrap out of the country to promote this war of choice in order to gain support for it and you'll be laughed at... loudly. Have a nice evening and tomorrow morning be sure to check your newspaper to see how many more Americans were killed in Iraq. I'm not wasting any more of my time with a fool...
- The impression I got at the time was that Saddam already had the nuclear bomb and his finger was twitching on the detonator...the hair on the back of my neck stood up...designed to strike fear in every American...intentionally scare the scrap out of the country.
It doesn't take much comprehension to recognize the xanthous tenor.
xanthous tenor
Trying to hide your meaning behind a facade of faux erudition may have seemed quite clever to you, but I'm unimpressed.
It sounded like Pavarotti got jaundice.
Irony, I think wesley is saying it's your own fault that you didn't do your own personal inspection of Saddam's weapons program. You know, like all the rest of us did.
"...it's your own fault that you didn't do your own personal inspection..."
LOL!! My bad, Rusty.
Just to add a few more (long-winded) comments... During Bush's infamous State of the Union address I thought that there was probably even more to the alleged Saddam thret that Bush couldn't talk about publicly yet... but that in time more details would be revealed. For those of us who were concerned enough about the situation and bothered to follow what was occurring what was revealed was that (among other things)... the Niger 'yellowcake" document was a blatant forgery; the "aluminum tube" claim was debunked; "Curveball" was a totally unreliable informant; CIA analysts were vigorously arguing there was no evidence of WMD; Ahmed Chalabi had been providing bogus "intelligence"; and that Dick Cheney had been acting as a "gatekeeper", filtering information and opinions reaching the Oval Office. To top it off, the administration was populated by neocon "intellectuals" (some from The American Enterprise Institute, a right wing think tank with which Dick Cheney, Lynne Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld also had connections) who had been advocating a pre-emptive strike against Saddam Hussein long before Bush even took office. It all made sense and opened my eyes... the administration had exaggerated the alleged imminent threat of Saddam. I agree Saddam was a bad dude... but we had time to deal with him and to explore all options short of an invasion.
Imminent:1: likely to occur at any moment; impending: Her death is imminent.
Apparently there's a big difference between that and Saddam having his finger on the trigger. What that difference is, nobody knows.
The administration wasn't trying to scare us? Right. I love the argument that it's someone else's fault for believing the lies, not the fault of the liar himself. The smell of your desperation is palpable, and a poor cologne indeed.
Even now, as many of those who supported the war have abandoned it, it's labeled as irresponsible to talk about it at all. Do you deny that the rhetoric was the same during the build-up to war? That those who questioned the administration's claims and the need for war were labeled "pro-terrorist", "anti-military", "anti-american" etc. by Bush followers? But as Bush and co. were pushing for the need to go to war after 9/11, and any dissent was seen as dangerous "pre-9/11 thinking", it's people's fault for not calling them liars at every turn?
What an interesting world you live in, where there's no such thing as fraud. How could you charge someone for conning someone out of their money, since it's the victim's fault for believing it? They believe what they wanted to believe, and it's their tough luck, right?
Yeah, yeah, 17 feet, ark, blah blah whatever. I know that's your only response so I filled it in for you. That should save five seconds of your precious time.
Irony made no such claim he said "the impression i had" - that statement goes to the hysteria and disinformation that were central to the White House selling the idea of war. Bush is a liar - no two ways about it. We can speculate about his motives til the cows come home, but the fact is that he lied! That lie has now seen more than 3,000 U.S service personnel die for nothing - it has turned Iraq into a magnet for terrorists and led to increased power for Iran in the region - the whole thing is a disaster because this White House is not concerned with defending the U.S homeland nor does it care about bringing Bin Laden (yeah, remember that guy?) to justice. At the very least, let it be a lesson to the idiots who supported Bush - as much as they might like a President who is as stupid as they are, having a foreign policy which has "Let's Kick Some A$$" as its central theme is tantamount to murder!
"Irony made no such claim he said 'the impression i had'..."
Thank you for actually reading (and understanding) what I said. I intentionally used words such as "impression" and "suggested". When I said my impression was that Saddam had "his finger on the detonator" that was intended hyperbole... sarcasm, even. But my point, and which you understood, was that Bush intentionally gave the impression that Saddam was an "imminent" nuclear threat.
I do remember Bush's infamous State of the Union address... it made quite an impression on me. I know he said Saddam "had sought" nuclear materials from Niger. He did not say Saddam had tried but failed. He did not say that Saddam had been unsuccessful in acquiring the materials. Bush's words implied that Saddam had found a small African country to sell him the goods while we weren't watching there. Because of Bush's words and tone my assumption was that the situation was critical... but also that Bush probably could not reveal all the details at that moment without compromising ongoing intelligence operations. The impression many of us were left with was that the situation was grave, that we were under an imminent threat... and my point was that Bush intentionally created that impression regardless how one may now defensively parse his words to argue that Bush didn't specifically say Saddam had probably acquired nuclear capability and was targeteing America.
Thanks again for taking the time to comprehend what I was saying...
You arent claiming the Bush administration wasnt doing everything they could to GIVE that false impression are you? Bush even LIED about what the IAEA said in their 98 report to give that impression. Your argument is disengenuous. This administration was lying, decieving and pushing false information and you blame someone for falling for their trap? To some extent. People perhaps should have known that Bush is such a shameless liar they couldnt believe a word that came out of his mouth much less the impression he was ACTIVLY TRYING TO SELL.
Maybe I can help?
Okay Wesley say we all live on the same street and are all members of a neighborhood watch. We also had a terrible murber in our area recently (9/11).
At our neighborhood watch meeting, I as the leader of the group get up and say, "Mr. Apple at the end of the street is someone we are concerned about."
Irony101 stands up and says, "Mr. Apple has stoped allowing us to inspect his house for weapons." (which was a cat and mouse game involving Iraq at that time, go read some of the pre-war history, between the Gulf war and our invasion).
Rusty in the back of the room (acting as Vice President on a news show) whispers to a few people, "Well if you remember Mr. Apple used a gun to kill someone in the past." (he dosn't need ot say more, the connection is being made, Mr. Apple + Gun + Past Murder = Current Murder)
Next I stand up and say, "Darkerwiththeday, told me he saw Mr. Apple shoping for a gun the other day."
See? I don't ever have to say that Mr. Apple comminted the murder or is planning more in the future. Everyone in the meeting is adding everything up and coming to the same conclusion (with a few people disagreeing of course).
Bush and his administration did a similar thing with Iraq. Bush neer has to say outright that we are about to be attacked or that Saddam has a bomb. His team used the fear of 9/11 and carefully crafted words/lies to give people the impression that Saddam had or would have a bomb and was willing to use it (possibly on us).
Nice story...but you forgot a few details.
There were several known associates of the person who committed the horrible murder on our street staying with Mr. Apple.
As a convicted felon he is not allowed to purchase another gun...very suspicious.
How do I know he was shopping for "another" gun? Because you forgot to mention that he shot and killed Rusty's dog several years ago. Additionally, he has shot repeatedly at my dog.
The neighborhood watch would be derelict in their duty if they chose to ignore the threat of Mr. Apple...hanging out with murderous scum...illegally owning a gun and shopping for another one...his cowardly murder of Rusty's lifelong companion, ol yeller...and repeatedly shooting at my dog.
Sorry, but Mr. Apple has got to go.
An irrational and obsessive hatred of Saddam Hussein has led to the deaths of almost 2 million Iraqis and several thousand Americans....all so a handful of psychopaths in the USA can cheer themselves hoarse on network TV about how great an idea it was.
We've killed more people in Iraq than Saddam has.....who's the monster?
- the deaths of almost 2 million Iraqis -redking
Unfounded...undocumented...and don't even go to any of the debunked crap studies by Lancet.
Yah, the pre-eminent medical journal in the industry is "crap".
You're hopeless.
Wesley,
Can you please link to a good example that "debunks" the Lancet's statistical analysis on violent deaths in pre- and post-war Iraq?
Preferably without all of the infantile "nya nya nya" stuff I keep seeing on the conservative blogs. Or was that what you were referring to?
In the first study they reported that the death toll was between 8,000 and 194,000.
In the second study they reported that the death toll was between 393,000 and 943,000.
A bunch of asshats throwing a dart against the wall. According to them...the Iraq death total could be over 4 times higher than Hiroshima and Nagasaki combined.
According to their best guess...550 people have met violent deaths every single day since the onset.
I'll leave it to you to show any source reporting over 500 violent deaths per day...
So much for not getting the infantile "nya nya nya"
Ahhh, the old "lets reject reality when it doesn't suit us" game. Otherwise known as sticking your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la-la-la-la when someone says something you don't want to hear.
Since 1991 the USA has killed around 2 million Iraqis, directly and indirectly....mass murder wearing the Stars and Stripes. You can deny it all you want but it is TRUE!
NEVER debunked and WISHING wont make it so
Total misrepresentation. FIRST, since there was no corraborative relationship between Saddam and al Queda it would be more like he was at the same restaurant with unsavory characters. SECOND. There is no evidence he ever tried to buy a gun ( since being convicted and becoming a felon) It is more like there were RUMORS he had a gun but his home and place of business were searched and THERE WAS NO GUN. (why do you guys keep pretending there WERE WMDs in Iraq when we invaded?) In fact ALL evidence seen by both Kay and Duelfer the cops investigating this murder reported that he gave up having guns shortly after released from prison.
This next is a purely delusional attempt at an argument
How do I know he was shopping for "another" gun? Because you forgot to mention that he shot and killed Rusty's dog several years ago. Additionally, he has shot repeatedly at my dog. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Yes but that was BEFORE he was arrested, convicted and did his time. Saying because he committed THAT crime he must be guilty of THIS murder is a classic logical fallacy that doesnt rise to the level of absurdity
Your last paragraph is an out and out LIE. He DIDNT HAVE A GUN and we cannot show, nor do Kay or Duelfer BELIEVE he was shopping for a FIRST gun much less ANOTHER gun. You have slipped into TOTAL delusion with this claim. THERE WERE NO WMDs WHEN WE INVADED. Try to enter the reality based universe and accept that. So because YOU just decided, remember neighborhood watch, this isnt a matter of turning it over to the police but rather a vigilante action that killed Mr Apple and a dozen or more innocent nieghbors then you found out THERE WAS NO GUN. This kind of thinking is why conservatives cannot be trusted with foriegn policy. Hey be sure to tell that judge when the neighborhood watch gets arrested for the vigilante action that you just couldnt take the chance and he had to go. THAT kind of faith based intelligence and logic is what has to go. Its morally reprehesible and bereft of logic.
I believe the argument is this (taken from the Powerline link from above):
So: what Wilson actually told the CIA, contrary to his own oft-repeated claims, is that he was told by the former mining minister of Niger that in 1998, Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from that country, and that Iraq's overture was renewed the following year. What Wilson reported to the CIA was exactly the same as what President Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address: there was evidence that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Africa.
Recall Wilson's famous op-ed in the New York Times, published on July 6, 2003, which ignited the whole firestorm over the famous "sixteen words" in Bush's State of the Union speech. In that op-ed, Wilson identified himself as the formerly-unnamed person who had gone to Niger to investigate rumors of a possible uranium deal between Iraq and Niger. Here are the key words in Wilson's article:
It was this flat-out lie about what Wilson learned in Niger, and what he reported to the CIA upon his return, that fueled the "sixteen words" controversy and led to the publication of Wilson's best-selling account, titled, ironically, The Politics of Truth.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
As mefirst said, the bottom of the post indicated a correction that the country referred to in 1998 was Iran not Iraq. But it says nothing about it not referring to Iraq in 1999.
i know you reposted, so my answer is there.
See I tried to explain it like I would to a fifth grader and he still didn't see what I was trying to say. Wow, is fourth grade that hard?
So your saying that Al Quida was in Iraq? Because that is a BIG NO, or that Saddam was a supporter of Al Quida? Not as much as Bush portrayed to the media.
And in my example, I only have the rumor that Mr. Apple had the gun, read carefully. No facts to prove it.
Cooking the books.Over the last several months several crooks were sent to prison for cooking the books at Enron, WorldCom, Adelphia, TYCO, and Qwest. They deserve every day in prison and more. The great harm that they did was to cheat people out of money. Now the IG at the Pentagon has produced a report that pre-war Iraqi intelligence used to justify our invasion of Iraq were in essence “cooked books”. Here is the link to the full report.http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/supporting/2007/DODIG.execsummary.020907.pdf
Of course the cookers of the Iraqi intelligence books, Rumsfeld. Wolfowitz and Douglas J. Feith, have all left government service, and may be immune from any legal consequences. The harm that these public servants (political appointees) have done has cost thousands of lives and thousands more injuries to the bodies, minds, and souls of the American Soldier and the Iraqi people. They will never see the inside of a prison, but I believe that there are special places in Hell for people like them. They may have not done anything illegal as the report says but they are morally and ethically as corrupt as the business men who destroyed those companies. I pray that the actions of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith won't in the end destroy our great nation.