"bush lied about saddam's pursuit of uranium" envoy says

[3rdpath]

LINK (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1057443008774&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037)

quick synopsis:

he's sent to investigate the saddam/african uranium connection.
he then reports back to the whitehouse that there is no connection and that documents "proving" saddam's attempt to purchase uranium are, in fact, blatant forgeries.

yet bush uses the fictional "evidence" anyway in his state of the union address as justification for war.

" what else are they lying about"...the envoy says.

EDIT: and this is what he said on " meet the press"

{In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Wilson insisted his doubts about the purported Iraq-Niger connection reached the highest levels of government, including Vice President Dick Cheney's office.

In fact, he said, Cheney's office inquired about the purported Niger-Iraq link.

"The question was asked of the CIA by the office of the vice president. 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," said Wilson.

Yet nearly a year after he had returned and briefed CIA officials, the assertion that President Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium from Africa was included in President Bush's State of the Union address as the nation marched toward war with Saddam's Iraq.}


any thoughts?

[macfan]

A couple of notes... This particular bit of information, that the documents which seemed to indicate that Iraq was seeking uranium in Niger was based on a forgery, came out before the war in Iraq.

There is also a tendency in some stories I have read to think that this uranium from Africa was a major reason for going to war in Iraq, but Powell didn't even mention it in his address to the UN--probably because of the uncertainty of it.

Another thought that comes to mind is who made the forgery? Certainly the British or Americans--and many others--are capable of much more sophisiticated forgeries that those described.

[Maclarny]

At the least it is insulting to the intelligence of the American People that Bush should stuff lies down our throat in order to justify a war in which our children, siblings, and parents could very well die and have. What have our soldiers fought for other than a further ten years of hard times? Please, someone tell me that we've done something right because I can't find anything.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by macfan
There is also a tendency in some stories I have read to think that this uranium from Africa was a major reason for going to war in Iraq, but Powell didn't even mention it in his address to the UN--probably because of the uncertainty of it.

The President mentioned it several times, and whether Powell made direct reference to it in his address to the Security Council is immaterial, because this evidence was turned over to the UN. A day or two later, in a press conference Hans Blix repudiated the Niger letters as obvious fakes.

[IJ Reilly]

Sorry, it was Mohamed ElBaradei in his remarks to the Security Council on March 7, the same day as Powell's address to the council.

With regard to uranium acquisition, the IAEA has made progress in its investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. The investigation was centered on documents provided by a number of states that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium between 1999 and 2001.

The IAEA has discussed these reports with the governments of Iraq and Israel, both of which have denied that any such activity took place.

For its part, Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries, including Niger in February 1999, which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports.

The IAEA was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the government of Niger and to compare the form, format, contents and signature of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation.

Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded with the concurrence of outside experts that these documents which formed the basis for the report of recent uranium transaction between Iraq and Niger are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence if it emerges relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan
Powell didn't even mention it in his address to the UN--probably because of the uncertainty of it.


dunno if you've seen it, but this guardian report (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,968581,00.html) details some of powell's preparation.


Presented with a script for his speech, Mr Powell suspected that Washington hawks were "cherry picking", the US magazine Newsweek also reports today.
[...]
Mr Powell's team removed dozens of pages of alleged evidence about Iraq's banned weapons and ties to terrorists from a draft of his speech, US News and World Report says today. At one point, he became so angry at the lack of adequate sourcing to intelligence claims that he declared: "I'm not reading this. This is bull****," according to the magazine.

[Desertrat]

1. Did this envoy report directly to either Cheney or Bush? If not, his information was "filtered", at the very least. It's entirely possible that the envoy's information was not judged to be accurate. That's a fairly common event.

2. "The IAEA has discussed these reports with the governments of Iraq and Israel, both of which have denied that any such activity took place." Hmmm. Are we, then, the only government on this planet which is known to lie? I'm not saying the documents weren't forgeries or whatever. It's just that in "matters nuclear" there's far more lying than truth-telling.

In other words, I'm sorta fed up with the notion that Bush has sure knowledge that some statement he makes is incorrect, and is indeed a lie. Part of it for me is the risk/reward ratio. The Bushies could have made their case for war against Iraq with no mention whatsoever of nuclear crap.

'Rat

[zimv20]

Originally posted by Desertrat

In other words, I'm sorta fed up with the notion that Bush has sure knowledge that some statement he makes is incorrect, and is indeed a lie.

i understand that, but the CIA knew last year those documents were forged. and bush used them in his january state of the union address.

so either:
1. he didn't get word they were fake
2. he knew and used them anyway

either possibility doesn't reflect well on his administration.

[mercedesrules]

Originally posted by Maclarny
At the least it is insulting to the intelligence of the American People that Bush should stuff lies down our throat in order to justify a war in which our children, siblings, and parents could very well die and have. What have our soldiers fought for other than a further ten years of hard times? Please, someone tell me that we've done something right because I can't find anything.

What he said!

MR

[Pinto]

Check out this link:

link (http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030630&s=ackermanjudis063003&c=1)

It is the most detailed and well investigated report I've seen on how the CIA were pressured to toe the line and how the US public were played like cheap violins.

It's a long article, but well worth reading.

It should be interesting to hear Macfan's excuses about why this behavior is all ok.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by Pinto
It should be interesting to hear Macfan's excuses about why this behavior is all ok.
I think I can anticipate his response:[list=1] Anything you read in the New Republic can't be trusted.
Saddam is a bad man. A very bad man.
[/list=1]

[macfan]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
I think I can anticipate his response:[list=1] Anything you read in the New Republic can't be trusted.
Saddam is a bad man. A very bad man.
[/list=1]

And I think we can anticipate IJ Reilly's reaction to just about anything related to Iraq as:

1. Anything that you read in the New Republic is an unbiased and complete reflection of how events unfolded since they have no political agenda there.

2. Bush is a very bad man. A very bad man.

zimv20,

so either:
1. he didn't get word they were fake
2. he knew and used them anyway

or...

3. there was other information independent from these documents to lead intelligence people to believe that Saddam was after uranium and/or working on a nuclear program.

Things are not always either/or, even though people often like to think in black and white terms when dealing with those with whom they disagree politically.

[Desertrat]

Macfan can speak for himself, of course, but I doubt he'd agree that such behavior is okay. I know I don't. I can tolerate lies of omission, but not outright lying in the face of known facts.

The problem with all this is in finding the original documents or finding the person(s) such that "true fact" can be established. Too many people have axes to grind; there are numerous factions within ANY administration.

I've been reading of various conspiracies and all manner of political chicanery since before JFK was assassinated. I've generally come to the notion of, "Never attribute to crookedness what can be attributed to plain old stupidity." I guess I've seen too much "proof" which couldn't prove that water's wet.

And so it goes,

'Rat

[macfan]

Originally posted by Desertrat
Macfan can speak for himself, of course, but I doubt he'd agree that such behavior is okay.


Which is why I didn't give Pinto the dignity of a serious reply.

[toontra]

Originally posted by macfan
or...

3. there was other information independent from these documents to lead intelligence people to believe that Saddam was after uranium and/or working on a nuclear program.


Ah, so you believe there were other sources. May I ask why you think that?

[macfan]

Originally posted by toontra
Ah, so you believe there were other sources. May I ask why you think that?

I have no idea if there were other sources. I am just pointing out that the either 1 or 2 that was given doesn't automatically follow from the information that we currently have.

[IJ Reilly]

Originally posted by macfan
And I think we can anticipate IJ Reilly's reaction to just about anything related to Iraq as:

1. Anything that you read in the New Republic is an unbiased and complete reflection of how events unfolded since they have no political agenda there.

2. Bush is a very bad man. A very bad man.

You probably shouldn't respond while you're angry. It really shows. If you hoped this reply to have impact or to even make sense, well, it doesn't.

[macfan]

Originally posted by IJ Reilly
You probably shouldn't respond while you're angry. It really shows. If you hoped this reply to have impact or to even make sense, well, it doesn't.

Angry? Not at all. Just having a little fun. Make sense? It makes as much sense as the one it was mocking, and that was my point.

[Pinto]

Originally posted by macfan
Which is why I didn't give Pinto the dignity of a serious reply.

Lets just "pretend" that the report in the link is correct and factual.

What would be your thoughts on the misrepresentation of facts to support an invasion of another country?

[Pinto]

Originally posted by macfan
I have no idea if there were other sources. I am just pointing out that the either 1 or 2 that was given doesn't automatically follow from the information that we currently have.

Invisible/non-existent intelligence proving the existence of invisible/non-existent WOMD.

[zimv20]

Originally posted by macfan

3. there was other information independent from these documents to lead intelligence people to believe that Saddam was after uranium and/or working on a nuclear program.


okay, let's consider that. i assume it would follow the lines of

1. we (the WH) have classified evidence of a nuclear program
2. we have a fake document that makes our point
3. let's use the fake document, knowing that it will sway the public
4. we can feel okay w/ that because we know our conclusion is correct

i still consider that lying.


Things are not always either/or, even though people often like to think in black and white terms when dealing with those with whom they disagree politically.

i agree. i wish bush agreed, too.

[pseudobrit]

Originally posted by macfan
And I think we can anticipate IJ Reilly's reaction to just about anything related to Iraq as

Ah, good. I see we have a few mindreaders in our midst. And of course, being such, there's no need for further debate, right? Since you already know everything and stuff.

[Rower_CPU]

More fodder for the Wasteland...