<p>FF - I don’t read blogs. Sorry. If you do you end up with the logic processes you demonstrated above. You left out one small part:
<br>
Remember, we’re talking about your boy’s “16 words”: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. </p>
<p>Wilson never “coroborated the liklihood that Saddam was trying to get yellow cake from Niger” - that’s your exact quote - he merely accurately reported the statement by Mayaki about a meeting at which uranium was, in fact, never discussed. I guess it is a little too subtle for your blog buddies to try to grapple with the concept that a ruthless dictator who is “seeking significant qualtities of uranium from Africa” would send a “delegation” with the cojones to actually bring the subject up when they met with the Nigerien officials. Wilson didn’t “corroborate” the Niger yellowcake story. (There were actually a lot of other reasons why the story was clearly bogus, raised by Wison, Owens-Kirkpatrick, and others.) Wilson delivered his candid - and entirely accurate - opinion that the Niger/Iraq/Uranium story was bunk. He said so to the Ambassador, and he said so to the CIA. Nothing he told the CIA or anyone else “corroborated” anything but that. The fact that the (unfortunately now hopelessly politicized) intelligence apparatus of the US government found Mayaki’s essentially meaningless speculation as to the “hidden meaning” of “expanding commercial relations” between two countries to be “the most important fact in the report” reflects [poorly] on the CIA, not Wilson.</p>
The committee was unanimous in accepting the report. Which means they all signed off on it. I’m curious, Allmusic–in view of your comment about the vice president in #16 and your sense that those of us who disagree aren’t paying “the slightest bit of attention”…what exactly is it that you are paying attention to, in forming your conspiracy theories? FF at least provided a citation in correcting Kluge’s misunderstanding of things. You just seem to fulminate randomly. Is your opinion actually informed by anything, or are you just another political nihilist?</p>
<p>Wilson called the 16 words a “lie” when that’s simply not true.</p>
<p>BTW, I looked everywhere and I can’t find any authoritative evidence that anyone in the Administration claimed that Saddam had purchased uranium or that he had nuclear weapons. They did say that he was trying to restart his nuclear program and it was nearly impossible to determine how log it would take him to get a nuclear weapon. </p>
<p>But that’s not the same thing as anyone smart enough to find this website should be able to tell.</p>
<p>kluge, I get it now. So if your son were to go meet with a drug dealer but the dealer thought he might be a narc and hence refuses to deal him any drugs, well then from your perspective your son never sought to buy drugs. Interesting but twisted logic.</p>
<p>Over all, Maguire thinks that Libby’s defense will be an “I forgot” based on evidence that he had much more important things on his mind at the time. That’s the reasons for the mostly successful subpoena on the PDBs.</p>
<p>Another point will be Libby’s motive for lying. Fitzgerald has yet to produce any evidence that Plame was covert dispite assertions in previous filings that that was the case and he admits he has no evidence that Libby knew Plame’s relationship with the CIA was classified. From this morning:
[quote]
The defense also amplifies a point made by Fitzgerald in an earlier filing when he wrote that “To date, we have no direct evidence that Libby knew or believed that Wilson’s wife was engaged in covert work.”</p>
<p>In the current filing, the defense says that “As far as we can tell from the allegations of the indictment or from discovery, there is no evidence to support a contention that Mr. Libby knew Ms. Wilson was employed in any capacity other than an analyst whose identity is neither secret nor sensitive.”</p>
<p>At some point, Fitzgerald will probably need to address the question of Ms. Plame’s actual status, and what Libby knew about it - this ties in to whether there was any underlying crime for Fitzgerald to have been investigating, and to Libby’s motives to lie.<a href=“Links%20to%20the%20documents%20quoted%20are%20provided%20at%20the%20blog.”>/quote</a></p>
<p>Forcing the reporters to testify to what they said during the Grand Jury may be one of the most important things, of course. Since they won’t be protected by any deal they made with Fitzgerald on what questions they’ll be asked and they’ll be subject to cross-examination, it’s going to be interesting to see how that all plays out.</p>
<p>Is it better not to question and explore and doubt then to follow blindly a leader? Isn’t faith for religion? Seems some have such blind faith and feel that anyone who wonders about this administration are called all kinds of names because we believe in the three branches of government, honesty, ethics, accountability, investigations, but some people just trust that all is fine because to admit that perhaps this administration has done somethings wrong personally reflects on their faith system. </p>
<p>Sorry, I do not have blind faith in any leader, Rep or Dem or Ind, but if a person can NEVER admint their leaders and their leaders appointees have made a mistake of any kind or ever done anything wrong, then that is cultlike.</p>
<p>To question is not cultlike, to never question is.</p>
<p>FundingFather, I have to thank you for demonstrating with admirable clarity the thought processes of the Bush administration and its apologists. If your son were to go meet with another student from his Econ class, and that kid was known to deal weed on the side, does that “corroborate” your belief that your son was “seeking drugs”? Even if he only talked to him about the Econ paper that’s due next week? That’s your "interesting logic. The fact of the matter is that the Nigerien government never “refused” to sell yellowcake to anyone - no one ever asked them to sell it. (Of course, they couldn’t have sold it even if they wanted to, for other reasons, but I doubt that that fact would even slow the Bush excuse train down.) The belief that the “reports” from the former Nigerien official “corroborate” anything is the kind of wishful thinking and non-reality based analysis which has contributed to building the Bush administration’s record of mind-boggling incompetence coupled with collosal arrogance.</p>
<p>Kluge, I expect certain posters to randomly link to various sources without having read them, but it’s an extremely unattractive trait for a trained lawyer. For Pete’s sake, read the damn thing. This will be even easier: Go get the “N” book of your kids’ encylopedia. Look up “Niger.” Go to “economy.” Now, read the part about how it is one of the world’s poorest countries, with barely 3% of its land used for agriculture, barely able to feed its own people in between famines. It has exactly one major resource: Uranium. Now, try to synthesize this information, and develop a modicum of intuition, or at least cognition. Try to think of what in the world an Iraqi delegation that was trying to develop economic ties with Niger might have been interested in. This isn’t rocket science.</p>
<p>kluge, why is it that when I read your posts I get this mental image of Sergeant Schultz from Hogan’s Heroes - “I see nooooothing”. Either that or the “see-no-evil” monkey with his hands over his eyes. </p>
<p>To carry on the analogy, if the weed dealer was primarily known around campus as a weed dealer and 75% of his activity revolved around dealing weed and he admitted that he could see no other reason as to why your son would come to see him other than to buy weed and then had to divert the conversation away from buying weed, don’t you think that there is a smidgeon of evidence that, along with other independent reports of your son trying to buy weed that just perhaps that was what he was trying to do? Or at least wouldn’t this be another “dot” pointing in that direction? It most certainly would not be evidence that would contradict the notion of a drug buy, which is what “the former ambassador” would now have us believe.</p>
<p>Maybe I have personalized it a bit too much with the analogy and it is impossible for you to see St. kluge, Jr. as someone seeking drugs. Let’s make it more appropriate for this case - suppose the person seeking the weed dealer has been caught with weed in the past and on top of that is known to also be a heavy user of other illegal substances. If you still maintain the innocence of a meeting with someone who presumed the intent of the meeting was to buy drugs, then I can only say that thank God you are not in any sort of law enforcement or national security position. Your inability to connect the dots (or refusal to do so) is amazing. I can see you at airport security: “hey buddy, nice gun you’ve got there, you plan on doing some hunting with Cheney? Have a nice trip.”</p>
Now, acting like real lawyers (or, for that matter, like adults with a smidgeon of common sense) lets look at the “evidence” which supposedly corroborates the statement that “…Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa”: A former Nigerien offical says that a businessman told him that “an Iraqi delegation” wanted to meet with him to discuss “expanding commercial relations” between the two countries, which he interpreted to mean they wanted to talk about buying yellowcake uranium - which anyone who knows anything about Niger would know he couldn’t deliver even if he wanted to. At one point he says he met with the delegation, but they didn’t talk about yellowcake sales (what did they talk about?) Later he says he never even met with them because he was out of the country at a conference. </p>
<p>So what does it all mean? Nothing. We don’t know if there actually ever was an “Iraqi delegation”, or if there was, who they actually were. If there was such a “delegation” we don’t know what they might have actually wanted, because they either never said, or never actually even met with anyone in Niger. All we have is what amounts to a changing, uncorroborated story which may or may not be true, and for which there are any number of interpretations and explanations (depending on what the former official’s motivations might have been in making the report.) It’s all just noise. </p>
<p>Niger couldn’t deliver uranium to Iraq if it wanted to, and there’s no credible evidence that Iraq’s former government ever actually even made inquiries into the possibility.</p>
<p>Folks, this is just common sense. I understand a desperate desire to savage someone who made Bush look bad, and to come up with excuses and explanations for Bush’s now-thoroughly discredited claims and excuses for the Iraq war. But the bottom line is Joe Wilson went to Niger, made inquiries, and reported to the US ambassador to that country that the Niger/Iraq/Uranium story was baseless - a conclusion she agreed with. He returned to the US and reported the same thing here. He also reported the Nigerien official’s story, but no reasonable person with even a modest grasp of the facts surrounding that story would take it as significant evidence of anything at all. Treating is if it was is a sign of desperation.</p>
<p>Kluge, Im afraid you just dont get it or are refusing to try. This is NOT an issue of whether a sale of yellowcake was consummated. If that was what was at issue, Wilsons report was spot on. That may be why that he and the ambassador think that he refuted the Niger issue.</p>
<p>However, Wilson may be too obtuse to realize that the interesting bit of information that he DID bring back was that there is indeed another bit of evidence that Iraqi agents were attempting to buy yellowcake. (The fact that this may not have been commercially viable is irrelevant for all we know, the Iraqi agents were dumber than Wilson). The point was that there were several corroborating reports from independent sources that Saddam was trying to score some yellowcake. Granted, this is not slam dunk proof, but combined with the British report and the other European intelligence, plus the known fact that Saddam has been trying to develop nuclear bombs for decades, one would have to be extremely dim witted or negligent to not add Wilsons report into the stack of papers that add to the evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program. It certainly does not make the case for Saddam not having a nuclear program. And it is even more evident that absolutely no case can be made that Bush lied about the British report about the yellowcake.</p>
<p>Hey - this is kind of fun. I haven’t looked at any of this stuff in a while. There was an Iraqi “delegation” in Niger in 1999:
So, Iraq’s Ambassador to the Pope made a swing through four African countries, including Niger, delivering invitations to Saddam’s birthday party (or whatever it was.) My previous assessment that the story about the “Iraqi delegation” meant nothing looks pretty good to me at this point. </p>
<p>I never said Bush “lied”. I don’t think he’s (quite) that stupid. I think he (and his handlers) are simply arrogant and incompetent, which leads them to make claims that are not actually supported by a sensible assessment of available evidence. But let’s not forget where this discussion started out. You, Fundingfather, said this:
You were referring to Joe Wilson. Wilson’s assessment after his trip to Niger was that “it was highly unlikely that anything was going on.” He was right. His “assessment” never “corroborated the likelihood that Saddam was trying to get yellowcake from Niger” and in fact that claim never had reliable support and has now been thoroughly debunked. There was nothing “going on” in terms of Iraq getting or trying to get yellowcake from Niger. Wilson was right, just as CGM said. Why you feel a need to attack Joe Wilson is worth some reflection. I don’t care about the guy one way or the other. But your response to the suggestion that he was “right” - a visceral and unmodulated attack on the man - doesn’t reflect a lot of objectivity.</p>
<p>Still not getting it I see. His assessment of there being no transaction was correct. However, once again, his report included more than just that piece of information and that part of his report did indeed help corroborate Saddam’s hunt for yellowcake.</p>
<p>Beyond that piece of evidence, Wilson’s story has been debunked on many levels. As a student of the Senate Intelligence Committee report, I’m sure you have all of the information at hand to see where his lies were. It was obvious to them, Democrats and Republicans alike.</p>
<p>As long as you are having fun with the research, perhaps you can provide some proof that “that claim never had reliable support and has now been thoroughly debunked. There was nothing ‘going on’ in terms of Iraq getting or trying to get yellowcake from Niger.” It’s easy to throw that allegation out and hope that the gullible will buy it, but some of us would like to see some proof - especially the British who still buy into their intelligence on the matter, as do, I presume, the other European intelligence agencies. Perhaps you should enlighten them with your findings.</p>
<p>I’m pretty sure that by now they have figured out that the large amount of yellowcake ore needed to supply a uranium refining program simply could not have been slipped out of the French mines in Niger even if Saddam had wanted it. And then there’s the slight problem that Iraq had no uranium refining capacity in 1999, so they couldn’t have done anything with the tons of yellowcake ore needed for the process even if they had gotten their hands on it. As best I can tell, the only support for the “Saddam’s seeking uranium in Africa” theory was (1) the phony documents which were first described and then supplied to American and English intelligence by the Italians, and (2) the fact of the February, 1999 visit to Africa by the Iraqi Ambassador to the Pope. Even the CIA eventually figured it out: According to factcheck.org, by June, 2003:
Now, you know I can’t prove a negative - did Saddam Hussein dream of owning nuclear weapons in his heart of hearts? Who knows? He’s a nut case. But I don’t think there’s any serious dispute that Iraq could not have smuggled tons of yellowcake ore out of the French mines in Niger, and couldn’t have done anything with it if they had. So the likelihood that they “recently sought large quantities” of the stuff that they couldn’t get and couldn’t do anything with if they had it is pretty low. In hindsight I feel pretty comfortable in taking the position that Joe Wilson’s assessment of the situation there was correct, and that the message Pres. Bush was trying to convey to the American people with his 16 words was not.</p>
<p>If that’s the case, why did Wilson, who even his enemies acknowledge his an intelligent man who knows lots of things about that part of Africa, why did he spend all that time drinking tea with the ex-Niger officials instead of the French who actually ran the mines?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Fair enough, especially since everyone involved agreed to that eventually. In Wilson’s case he was right, alright, but certainly not because he did such good work in Niger. Even a stopped clock and all that.</p>
<p>Now what do you say about the fact that the point he made in his op-ed had no basis in fact? What he said, that the Administration must manipulating the evidence if it disregarded his opinion falls apart when it turns out that the Administration was never aware of his opinion. Particularly the way his opinion was completely dismissed, which must upset the egomanical Wilson no end. If he were to allow himself to think about it, that is.</p>
<p>And as Fact Check points out, that Bush was wrong is light years away from proving what so many contend, that he lied.</p>
Actually those most directly involved with that, the British, still maintain that their intelligence on that was correct and that Bush’s words were “well-founded”.</p>
<p>I agree that Wilson overestimated his role in the scheme of things. So? In fact, Bush and Cheney’s underlings should have sent Wilson’s conclusions up the ladder, with appropriate recommendations for caution regarding the wild accusations being thrown about to justify the Iraq war. The fact that they apparently didn’t doesn’t absolve Bush and Cheney of responsibility for their administration’s failings, and Wilson’s assumption that they did - crediting the Bush administration with more integrity and competence than apparently was warranted - is neither a “lie” nor evidence of moral failing on his part. </p>
<p>The buck has to stop somewhere. That the Bush administration bred a culture of yes-men who only passed on information which supported the top guys’ pre-existing opinions is probably more damning than anything else. And Wilson wasn’t right by chance - he was right because the truth was readily apparent to anyone who wasn’t blinded by ideology.</p>
<p>I don’t think Bush “lied.” I do think he wasn’t particularly concerned with what the truth actually was, as opposed to what he could get away with saying to advance his agenda - hence the careful phrasing of the 16 words. What the meaning of “is” is, right? I also think his administration mirrors his personal arrogance and incompetence, with the result that the country has been run just like Bush’s private businesses were - badly. </p>
<p>Do you know who forged the Italian documents which kick-started the Iraq/Niger story?</p>
<p>Motivation goes a long way in determining the outcome of intelligence and the British already have memos that go toward that motivation of having the evidence presented fitting what outcome they wanted: ie, we need “evidence” Saddam HAS wmd, and voila the intelligence presented to everyone (while much evidence to the contrary was ignored) matched that necessity</p>
<p>with Plame, more than one person leaked the name, we already know that, so to claim Cheney didn’t at this point is premature, and he didn’t have to leak it directly to get the information out to try and defame a person, but guess anyone doing anything in this administration to hurt others is okay with some people so long as the agenda is carried out</p>
<p>Saddam didn’t have WMD, Plame said that, and the made Cheney mad.</p>