Intelligence failures surrounded inquiry on Iraq-Niger uranium claim
WP: How phony letter drove Iraq war - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
This whole thing makes me sick.
Those letters were never a part of our intelligence conclusions nor did they have anything to do with the SOTU speech. That assertions that they were has been refuted in every commission, hearing and investigation. The fact is, as Joe Wilson discovered during his trip, Saddam WAS snooping around in Niger trying to make trade deals. Shabby reporting on the part of the reporter here, even a cursory look at the evidence would show he is spouting old refuted myths.
This has been discussed over and over here.
The fact is, as Joe Wilson discovered during his trip, Saddam WAS snooping around in Niger trying to make trade deals.
JOSEPH WILSON: What it catalogued was a trip out to Niger at the request of the CIA, acting in response to a question by the Vice President to check out allegations that Iraq had attempted to purchase significant quantities of uranium from that country. Now, it was a very important question, because, after all, Iraq would have only one use for uranium, and that would be nuclear weapons programs. And that would have been the one piece of incontrovertible evidence that he was attempting to reconstitute nuclear weapons programs, which would have lent some credence to the notion that the smoking gun might be a mushroom cloud.
I came back. I said there was nothing to this. Mine was one of three reports in the files of the US government that said there was nothing to this, which should have been reassuring to those who had sent us out, including the Vice President and the National Security Advisor.
Instead, of course, the President makes a statement in the State of the Union address, and as it turns out, he referred to British intelligence, which happened to be the same information. But he referred to British intelligence, because the CIA wouldn't clear his making that claim unless it was caveated by going through a third intelligence service. So there was real active deception there. This was not just an accident. This was not a slip of the tongue. These were people who wanted to put something in there that was actually deceptive to the US Congress and to the American people.
Care to give any evidence for this? I have some for you though.
This is Joe Wilson in a New York Times article:
Those letters were never a part of our intelligence conclusions nor did they have anything to do with the SOTU speech. That assertions that they were has been refuted in every commission, hearing and investigation. The fact is, as Joe Wilson discovered during his trip, Saddam WAS snooping around in Niger trying to make trade deals. Shabby reporting on the part of the reporter here, even a cursory look at the evidence would show he is spouting old refuted myths.
This has been discussed over and over here.
It really doesn't even matter what they found or didn't find.
We went to war based on bad intelligence. That much is a given fact.
Whether or not the intelligence was manipulated by the Bush people is debatable.
What people should really question is if any of this, even if true, constitutes sufficient pretext and cause to conduct a pre-emptive war.
Is this now the standard for this country to go to war?
Pretty low standards for a democracy.
So let's see one of the reasons we went to war in Iraq is vindicated and you simply jump in, dismiss it out of hand and hyjack the thread into a diatribe of assertions.
Saddam WAS trying to get yellow-cake, and he had plans for it. What we found and what we didn't find DOES matter and what we found proved, as Dr.Kay stated in his report, Saddam was even more dangerous than we had imagined.
About whether he had ready to go WMD. That's it. So what? Look at what we did find.
No it's not, it has been fully investigated and there is not a shred of evidence to show they did and plenty proving they did not. It was even state under oath in the Libby trial by CIA analysis. There was NO pressure not slanting of intelligence. The Bush administrations view of what Saddam did or didn't have was just the Same as the Clinton administrations.
It wasn't pre-emptive which is why there was sufficient pretext. He was in gross violation of the cease fire agreement from the first gulf-war and if multiple violations of the UN resolutions that allowed him to remain in power.
It always has been.
Then it's always been low by the standard you assert. I don't agree with the standard you set, I think 14 UN resolutions and 12 years to comply before he is remove quite a high standard on our part.
Here we have another fine example neo-con rhetorical non-logic. See how they struggle to rationalize feeble equivocations. And see how easily threatened they are by any sort of questions or criticism. Apparently their philosophy(if you can call it that) doesn't stand up to scutiny. Neo-cons can't make their reality work unless they can control all the conditions of the debate. If they can not define both sides of every argument for everyone, then their world falls apart. As demonstrated in the previous post. They depend on the "big lie" theory. You know, Hitler and Goebbles favorite tactic. The bigger the lie and the more you repeat it, the more people want to believe it.
Another typical example of neo-con debate(or at least what passes for such). Simply ignore and deny facts. Distort the truth. Resort to unrelated canards as a distraction. Vilify the messenger. Oh, and don't forget to define the agenda and all questions for everyone so neo-cons can constantly move the debate to the right. That way people can't even find the middle ground anymore. A crude Goebbles like tactic that has worked quite well for the right wing.
"I say that neo-con tactics are not only intellectually dishonest, but actually immoral. Because they have created an atmosphere which stifles critical thinking and civil discourse, they denigrate democracy. Because they seek to cynically manipulate the American people with crude propaganda, sly innuendo, and out right lies, they are immoral.
So, I pose a counter question. Is neo-con thinking just intellectually dishonest, or is it actually immoral?"
This is about the 5th post from you where engage in pure invective and use the Hitler/Goebbles analogy. In fact this looks like a cut and paste from another thread. Let's look
From post
http://www.debatepolitics.com/Environment/19655-more-hypocracy-gores-live-earth-2.html
Note the similar dodge of the subject then ad hominem, then the Hitler/Goebbles remark.
Or this little dig of your
http://www.debatepolitics.com/us-po...losi-guilty-violating-logan-act-1790-a-6.html
Well at least you left out the Nazi insinuation there.
As I told you people around here have to time for such post, if you can't debate the issue.............................well on the ignore list.
Thank you for including me in your "list". No doubt everyone who ever challenged infantile assertions is on that list. Perhaps you don't understand the concept of negative consequence. This seems more like a reward. And far from enhancing your credibility, it would seem to reveal a somewhat modest intellectual endowment as well.
| Moderator's Warning: |
Moderator's Warning:
I really must apologize for violating the standards of behavior for this forum. I also admit my guilt in choosing targets that are a little too easy. I am sorry that the gentleman in question was offended and apparently felt the need to complain. Now back to debating the topic. How neo-cons need to constantly twist the truth to control the conditions of every debate.
It's amazing to me how they all have the same talking points on the same subject no matter what. *yawn*
Intelligence failures surrounded inquiry on Iraq-Niger uranium claim
WP: How phony letter drove Iraq war - washingtonpost.com Highlights - MSNBC.com
This whole thing makes me sick.
Care to give any evidence for this? I have some for you though.
This is Joe Wilson in a New York Times article:
So Joe Wilson said something was up in Niger huh? Didn't sound like it to me.
Conclusion: [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]The plan to send the former ambassador to Niger was suggested by the former ambassador’s wife, a CIA employee. [/FONT]
The former ambassador’s wife suggested her husband for the trip to Niger in February 2002. The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on behalf of the [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]CIA, [/FONT]also at the suggestion of his wife, to look into another matter not related to Iraq. On February 12, 2002, the former ambassador’swife sent a memorandum to a Deputy Chief of a division in the CIA’SDirectorate of Operations which said, "[mJyhusband has good relations with both the PM [prime minister] and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this [FONT=Arial,Arial]sort [/FONT]of activity.’’ This was just one day before the same Directorate of Operations division sent a cable to one of its overseas stations requesting concurrence with the division’s idea to send the former ambassador to Niger.
Conclusion: [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]Rather than speaking publicly about his actual experiences during his inquiry of the Niger issue, the former ambassador seems to have included information he learned from press accounts and from his beliefs about how the Intelligence Community would have or should have handled the information he provided. [/FONT]
At the time the former ambassador traveled to Niger, the Intelligence Community did not have in its possession any actual documents on the alleged Niger-Iraq uranium deal, only second hand reporting of the deal. The former ambassador’s comments to reporters that the Niger-Iraq uranium documents "may have been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong," could not have been based on the forrner ambassador’s actual experiences because the Intelligence Community did not have the documents at the time of the ambassador’s trip. In addition, nothing in the report from the former ambassador’strip said anything about documents having been forged or the names or dates in the reports having been incorrect. The former ambassador told Committee staff that he, in fact, did not have access to any of the names and dates in the CIA’s reports and said he may have become confbsed about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS](IAEA) [/FONT]reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct. Of note, the names and dates in the documents that the IAEA found to be incorrect were not names or dates included in the CIA reports.
Following the Vice President’s review of an intelligence report regarding a possible uranium deal, he asked his briefer for the CIA’s analysis of the issue. It was this request which generated Mr. Wilson’s trip to Niger. The former ambassador’s public comments suggesting that the Vice President had been briefed on the information gathered during his trip is not correct, however. While the CIA responded to the Vice President’s request for the Agency’s analysis, they never provided the information gathered by the former Ambassador. The former ambassador, in an NBC Meet the Press interview on July 6,2003, said, "The office of the Vice President, I am absolutely convinced, received a very specific response to the question it asked and that response was based upon my trip out there." The former ambassador was speaking on the basis of what he believed should have happened based on his former government experience, but he had no knowledge that this did happen.
These and other public comments from the former ambassador, such as comments that his report "debunked" the Niger-Iraq uranium story, were incorrect and have led to a distortion in the press and in the public’s understanding of the facts surrounding the Niger-Iraq uranium story. The Committee found that, for most analysts, the former ambassador’s report lent more credibility, not less, to the reported Niger-Iraq uranium deal.
During Mr. Wilson’s media blitz, he appeared on more than thirty television shows including entertainment venues. Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had "debunked" the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. [FONT=Times New Roman,Times New Roman PS]As [/FONT]discussed in the Niger section of the report, not only did he NOT "debunk" the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true. I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact.
In [FONT=Courier New,Courier New PS]an [/FONT]interview with Committee staff, Mr. Wilson was asked how he knew some of the things he was stating publicly with such confidence. On at least two occasions he admitted that he had no direct knowledge to support some of his claims and that he was drawing on either unrelated past experiences or no information at all. For example, when asked how he "knew" that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved [FONT=Arial,Arial]"a [/FONT]little literary flair."
The former Ambassador, either by design or though ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. Surely, the Senate Intelligence Committee, which has unique access to all of the facts, should have been able to agree on a conclusion that would correct the public record. Unfortunately, we were unable to do so.
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/...v/serialset/creports/pdf/s108-301/roberts.pdf
It really doesn't even matter what they found or didn't find. We went to war based on bad intelligence. That much is a given fact. Whether or not the intelligence was manipulated by the Bush people is debatable.
There are so many interesting yet conflicting sources of information on this topic. Pretty funny how people like to define "fact" these days. The threshold for truth becomes more subjective all the time. Of couse anyone can quote any number of publications and web sites designed to promote what ever mindless lunacy people are predisposed to believe. Which is why I am extremely dubious when ever anyone quotes a "source". But since that seems to be the standard for proof around here, try this one. Many more to follow. tp://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021207A.shtml
lol, your answer to links to the 2004 Senate Intelligence Report and the National Intelligence Estimate of 2002, is "truthout," you're joking right?
The source you quoted is not the Senate Intelligence Report. It is a summary of remarks about the report made by Republican members of the committee. Which are at variance with Democrat minority opinion comments. Typical right wing tactic. Misrepresenting the nature and content of the source.
While there was no dispute with the underlying facts, my Democrat colleagues rehsed to allow the following conclusions to appear in the report:
Stinger said:The fact is, as Joe Wilson discovered during his trip, Saddam WAS snooping around in Niger trying to make trade deals.
No.
Firstly, Joe Wilson's official report is still classified. His public comments on the matter contradict your statement.
So let's see one of the reasons we went to war in Iraq is vindicated and you simply jump in, dismiss it out of hand and hyjack the thread into a diatribe of assertions.
Saddam WAS trying to get yellow-cake, and he had plans for it. What we found and what we didn't find DOES matter and what we found proved, as Dr.Kay stated in his report, Saddam was even more dangerous than we had imagined.
About whether he had ready to go WMD. That's it. So what? Look at what we did find.
No it's not, it has been fully investigated and there is not a shred of evidence to show they did and plenty proving they did not. It was even state under oath in the Libby trial by CIA analysis. There was NO pressure not slanting of intelligence. The Bush administrations view of what Saddam did or didn't have was just the Same as the Clinton administrations.
It wasn't pre-emptive which is why there was sufficient pretext. He was in gross violation of the cease fire agreement from the first gulf-war and if multiple violations of the UN resolutions that allowed him to remain in power.
It always has been.
Then it's always been low by the standard you assert. I don't agree with the standard you set, I think 14 UN resolutions and 12 years to comply before he is remove quite a high standard on our part.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?