[spacefreak]

Lefty Democrats and liberals, thanks for wasting our nation's time, energy, and money.

NY Times: Senate Report: How Niger Uranium Story Defied Wide Skepticism
NewsMax: Novak: Wilson's Wife Not a Covert CIA Agent
Washington Post: Report Disputes Wilson's Claims on Trip, Wife's Role
Slate: Plame's Lame Game - Christopher Hitchens
Kansas City Star: Wife suggested Wilson for inquiry, report says
NRO: Exposed and discredited, Joe Wilson might consider going back

[slow moe]

Yeah, all this crap started back in Jan. when former Treasury Secretary what's-his-name wrote a book slamming Bush, and was all over 60 Minutes.

When the Valerie Plame story broke, it was at the height of when the media was trotting out people who were willing to sell their soul to bash Bush. Book deals, you name it. Hey, it was money that the Democrats didn't have to spend on campaign ads, heh. Call it soft money.

It doesn't surprise me that Wilson's story is now riddled with holes, but at the time, his story accomplished precisely what it was designed to do. People rarely read passed a headline.

[PacHead]

So now we start to see who the real liars are. Interesting.

[tie]

The big deal here is that the Bush administration exposed a US CIA agent. This is illegal, traitorous, dangerous to our national security. The purpose was presumably to prevent any whistleblowers from coming forward. On this part of the issue, nothing has changed.

Please explain your statement: "Lefty Democrats and liberals, thanks for wasting our nation's time, energy, and money." Are you referring to the investigation of the administration for exposing a CIA agent? You think investigating a traitor/spy/national security risk within the white house is a waste of time?

[zigzag]

I'm in favor of holding Wilson accountable for his statements.

I'm also in favor of holding the Bush administration accountable for its statements, and for outing a CIA agent for political purposes.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by tie:
The big deal here is that the Bush administration exposed a US CIA agent. This is illegal, traitorous, dangerous to our national security. The purpose was presumably to prevent any whistleblowers from coming forward. On this part of the issue, nothing has changed.

The wife of Bush-bashing former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson is apparently not a covert CIA operative or an undercover agent, though she's been described that way repeatedly since the CIA asked for an investigation on how her identity was made public.

[BRussell]

If she's not an undercover agent, then why is her outing even being investigated? If the law didn't apply to her, that could have easily been determined, and no investigation and no prosecutor would have been necessary. And Bush wouldn't have had to hire Ken Lay's lawyer to defend him.

[Lerkfish]

There's likely indictments coming, which is why the full court press from the neocons attacking Wilson. Its a recurring pattern. Right before they KNOW they'll be something bad, they preempt it with character assasinations of the accuser in flurry of press releases.

been there, done that. Clark ring any bells?

What this REALLY means is that something VERY damaging is about to come out about the Bush administration concerning the outing of Plame.


I see that the republican faithful fell for it, and dutifully circulate the latest propaganda.

[zigzag]

You're quoting a NewsMax article from September 2003, quoting Novak, who has also made inconsistent statements and has had to cover his own rear end.

The President has called the outing a criminal act. By all indications, it was.

[slow moe]

OMG! We're so dead! Osama knows Valerie Plame is a CIA pencil-pusher, NOOOOOOO!!!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by slow moe:
OMG! We're so dead! Osama knows Valerie Plame is a CIA pencil-pusher, NOOOOOOO!!!

What is the point in minimizing a federal offense by someone in the administration?
That doesn't erase that it happened, and that it was a serious crime.

[doctorkeyser]

The party of Nixon.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
There's likely indictments coming, which is why the full court press from the neocons attacking Wilson. Its a recurring pattern. Right before they KNOW they'll be something bad, they preempt it with character assasinations of the accuser in flurry of press releases.

been there, done that. Clark ring any bells?

What this REALLY means is that something VERY damaging is about to come out about the Bush administration concerning the outing of Plame.


I see that the republican faithful fell for it, and dutifully circulate the latest propaganda.

Oh, come on. This isn't character assassination; this is Joe Wilson being caught in an outright lie. The whole 16 words scandal was a fabrication. This surfaced again because the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report shows that Wilson lied about being recommended by his wife, he lied about the intelligence on uranium sales, and he lied about the CIA having qualms about the reliability of those 16 words. What's ridiculous about this story isn't the "character assassination," it's the fact that the media refuses to cover it after playing up the 16 words as much as they did.

Restoring Honesty -- yeah, right.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Oh, come on. This isn't character assassination; this is Joe Wilson being caught in an outright lie. The whole 16 words scandal was a fabrication. This surfaced again because the bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report shows that Wilson lied about being recommended by his wife, he lied about the intelligence on uranium sales, and he lied about the CIA having qualms about the reliability of those 16 words. What's ridiculous about this story isn't the "character assassination," it's the fact that the media refuses to cover it after playing up the 16 words as much as they did.

Restoring Honesty -- yeah, right.

um...you do realize by the end of your post you're demonstrating the character assasination, right?

it's NOT a character assasination, it IS a character assasination, He a LIAR, its NOT about his character...blah blah blah

you are so self-contradictory its difficult to know which way you swing in order to refute you...so, instead, I will simply stand by my assessment: this concerted campaign is in full swing because something Bad™ is coming out in the next few days: re: an indictment.
And, by the virulence of the propaganda AGAINST wilson, I"m guessing its someone fairly high up....

[Spliffdaddy]

got a conspiracy theory brewing in your head again, do ya.

[BlackGriffen]

Hmm, this is very damaging to the "16 words" allegations, and would have been very damaging to Wilson. If only some idiot in the White House hadn't outed Plame. A little patience would have gone a long way. Unfortunately for GW, these are two separate issues, and the Plame outing isn't going to go away.

Somebody's going up on charges for this. The only question is: who is the administration's fall guy?

BlackGriffen

[tie]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
"The wife of Bush-bashing former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson is apparently not a covert CIA operative or an undercover agent, though she's been described that way repeatedly since the CIA asked for an investigation on how her identity was made public."

I'm not sure what you are talking about. My post described her as a "CIA agent," which she was. It is irrelevant if she is a "covert CIA operative."

Originally posted by Joshua:
The whole 16 words scandal was a fabrication.

Prove it. The links spacefreak posted say nothing of the sort.

Here are excerpts from the NY Times summary of what is currently known on the "16 words" scandal. I haven't read the Senate report.

Mr. Wilson went to Niger in February 2002... Analysts at the C.I.A. did not believe that Mr. Wilson had provided significant information, so the agency did not brief Mr. Cheney about it, despite his clear interest in the issue, the Senate found.

The C.I.A. issued another report in March 2002, based on information from the same foreign service, saying there was a sales agreement calling for Niger to provide 500 tons of uranium to Baghdad a year. The foreign service did not identify its source to the agency, and the agency told Senate investigators that it still did not know where the information came from...

On May 10, 2002, the C.I.A. issued a report for policy makers repeating that a "foreign government service says Iraq was trying to acquire 500 tons of uranium from Niger." In September 2002, the Defense Intelligence Agency published a report saying that "Iraq has been vigorously trying to procure uranium ore" even as it warned that it "cannot confirm" whether Iraq had the uranium. In October 2002, a National Intelligence Estimate, an interagency review for policy makers, included the foreign service's Niger reports.

But as that information was being published, C.I.A. officials were growing uncomfortable with the evidence.

A British white paper on Iraq issued in September 2002, made the allegations public, but C.I.A. officials warned Congress and the White House that they believed the British had exaggerated the case. In a conversation with the deputy national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, persuaded the White House to remove a reference to the uranium purchases from a speech Mr. Bush was planning to give in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002.

Just as the C.I.A. was turning cautious, new documents surfaced in Rome that seemed to confirm an Iraq-Niger deal. Once the documents arrived in Washington, the State Department's analyst was dubious. In an e-mail message to other analysts, he wrote, "You'll note that it bears a funky Emb. Of Niger stamp (to make it look official, I guess.)"

A month later, however, the Navy issued an intelligence report saying a large quantity of uranium from Niger was being stored in warehouses in the West African nation of Benin, and was destined for Iraq... A month later, an American defense attaché finally went to the Benin warehouses and found only bales of cotton.

In January 2003, the State Department's analyst sent an e-mail message to other analysts saying that he believed that the documents obtained in Italy were fake. The "uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax," he wrote.

But by that time, the White House was already working on Mr. Bush's State of the Union address, and wanted to include some mention of Iraq's efforts to acquire uranium, the Senate report said. On Jan. 27, the White House gave Mr. Tenet a draft copy of the address to review.

He passed it on to his executive assistant to give to other C.I.A. officials. He never read the speech, he told the Senate, and did not realize it included the uranium reference.

It was left to midlevel C.I.A. and White House officials to deal with the speech. A C.I.A. proliferation expert talked with his White House counterpart about the uranium reference, but he did not question its credibility, the Senate found.

The next day, in his State of the Union speech, Mr. Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

His address suddenly gave the uranium issue high visibility, but it could not withstand global scrutiny. In February 2003, Washington sent copies of the Iraq-Niger documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency, which monitors nuclear proliferation. The next month, the agency determined that the documents were forgeries. On March 11, the C.I.A. issued its own assessment, in which it said it could not dispute the atom agency's conclusion.

Basically, Bush made a statement based on documents that were known to be forgeries. The CIA is largely to blame.

But Bush himself is also to blame. Before giving his State of the Union address, he should have checked what he was saying.

As the US was about to go to war, Bush should have been on top of intelligence estimates about Iraq. Instead, he was apparently the last to know. This is his fault.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by tie:
Prove it. The links spacefreak posted say nothing of the sort.

The 16 words scandal erupted after Wilson claimed that 1) there was no credible evidence that Iraq sought to purchase uranium ("yellowcake") from Niger, and 2) that the Bush administration was aware of that fact but made the claim anyway. The Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed those claims.


Here are their findings on the first issue -- whether a deal was attempted.

From Section II (NIGER), Subsection B ("Former Ambassador"), p. 43:

[Former Nigerian Prime Minister] Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999, [blacked out] businessman, approached him and insisted that Mayaki meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Niger and Iraq. The intelligence report said that Mayaki interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales. The intelligence report also said that 'although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq.'

p. 44:

The intelligence report ... noted that Nigerian officials denied knowledge of any deals to sell uranium to any rogue states, but did not refute the possibility that Iraq had approached Niger to purchase uranium.

p. 45:

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ... which said, 'among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.'' Committee staff asked how the former ambassador could have come to the conclusion that the 'dates were wrong and the names were wrong' when he had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports. The former ambassador said that he may have 'misspoken' to the reporter when he said he concluded the documents were 'forged.' He also said he may have become confused about his own recollection after the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported in March 2003 that the names and dates on the documents were not correct and may have thought he had seen the names himself.

And on the claim that the CIA had warned the Bush administration that the Niger claim was unfounded:

p. 45:

The former ambassador told Committee staff that he had no direct knowledge of how the information he provided was handled by the CIA.

p. 46:

Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, the did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions on the issue.

And just for fun, here's the section of the report that contradicts Wilson's claim that his wife didn't recommend him for the position:

p.39:

...his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. ... a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, 'my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.'

And later on the same page:

she approached her husband on behalf of the CIA and told him 'there's this crazy report' on a purported deal for Niger to sell uranium to Iraq.

There you go. If you want to read more, you can download the Committee report here (23.4MB pdf).

Basically, Bush made a statement based on documents that were known to be forgeries. The CIA is largely to blame.

But Bush himself is also to blame. Before giving his State of the Union address, he should have checked what he was saying.

As the US was about to go to war, Bush should have been on top of intelligence estimates about Iraq. Instead, he was apparently the last to know. This is his fault.

According to the Senate report, the Bush administration was on top of the intelligence estimates. The claim in the speech represented the latest intelligence; the evidence about forgeries didn't come out until after the State of the Union speech. The relevant passage, from section I, p. 66:

At the time the President delivered the State of the Union address, no one in the IC had asked anyone in the White House to remove the sentence from the speech. CIA Iraq nuclear analysts and the Director of WINPAC told Committee staff that at the time of the State of the Union, they still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa, and they continued to hold that belief until the IAEA reported the documents were forgeries.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
um...you do realize by the end of your post you're demonstrating the character assasination, right?

it's NOT a character assasination, it IS a character assasination, He a LIAR, its NOT about his character...blah blah blah

you are so self-contradictory its difficult to know which way you swing in order to refute you...so, instead, I will simply stand by my assessment: this concerted campaign is in full swing because something Bad™ is coming out in the next few days: re: an indictment.
And, by the virulence of the propaganda AGAINST wilson, I"m guessing its someone fairly high up....

Character assassination usually implies that false, misleading, or unrelated information is being used to denounce someone. That isn't the case here; Joe Wilson wasn't honest when he talked to the media about the Niger yellowcake intelligence. That's just a fact as reported by the Senate Intelligence committee. I think we should be able to point that fact out without you screaming bloody murder about "character assassination" and "propaganda."

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Character assassination usually implies that false, misleading, or unrelated information is being used to denounce someone. That isn't the case here; Joe Wilson wasn't honest when he talked to the media about the Niger yellowcake intelligence. That's just a fact as reported by the Senate Intelligence committee. I think we should be able to point that fact out without you screaming bloody murder about "character assassination" and "propaganda."

nope, sorry, you have endure me screaming bloody murder. In your opinion you aren't employing character assasination, but you are hardly a noninterested party in determining that.
If you can express yourself to the point of calling someone a LIAR, I can express myself to the point that doing so is a character assasination.

[slow moe]

From Lord Butler's inquiry (Chapter 6, Section 4; "Uranium from Africa"):

499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government's dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush's State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa was well-founded.

500. We also note that, because the intelligence evidence was inconclusive, neither the Government's dossier nor the Prime Minister went on to say that a deal between the Governments of Iraq and Niger for the supply of Uranium had been signed, or uranium shipped.

501. We have been told that it was not until early 2003 that the British Government became aware that the US (and other states) had recieved from a journalistic source a number of documents alleged to cover the Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger. Those documents were passed to the IAEA, which in its update report to the United Nations Security Council in March 2003 determined that the papers were forgeries:

The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium to Iraq between 1999 and 2001. The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq and Niger, both of which denied that any such activities 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 offical to a number of African countries, including Niger, in February 1999, which Iraq might have thought 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 signatures 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 reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger, are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.

[IAEA GOV/INF/2003/10 Annex of 7 March 2003]

502. We have asked the IAEA what were their grounds for concluding that the visit paid by an Iraqi official to Africa was not for the purpose of acquiring uranium. The IAEA said:

...the Director General explained in his report dated 7 March 2004 [sic] to the UN Security Council that Iraq "described the visit by an Iraqi offical to a number of African countries, including Niger, in 1999, which Iraq might have thought given rise to the reports". On a number of occasions in early 2003, including in a letter dated 1 February 2003, the IAEA requested Iraq to provide details of all meetings held between Iraqi officals and officals from Niger around the year 2000. The Director of Iraq's National Monitoring Dictorate responded in a letter dated 7 February 2003 to the Director of the IAEA's Iraq Nuclear Verification Office. (It should be noted that at the time of Iraq's response Iraq had not been provided by the IAEA with any details contained in documents alleging the existence of a uranium contract.)

The Iraqi response referred to above explained that, on 8 February 1999, Mr. Wissan Al Zahawi, Iraq's then Ambassador to the Holy See, as part of a trip to four African countries, visited Niger as an envoy of the then President of Iraq to Mr. Ibrahim Bare, the then President of Niger, in order to deliver an offical invitation for a visit to Iraq, planned for 20 to 30 April 1999. (N.B. Mr. Bare passed away on 9 April 1999.) According to the Iraqi information, no such presidential visit from Niger to Iraq took place before 2003.

The Iraqi authorities provided the IAEA with excerpts from Mr. Al Zahawie's travel report to Niger. These excerpts support the above explanation by the Ambassador reguarding the purpose of his visit to Niger and do not contain any references to discussions about uranium supply from Niger.

In order to clarify the matter, the IAEA interviewed Mr. Al Zahawie on 12 February 2003. The information provided by the Ambassador about details about his 1999 trip to Africa also supported the information obtained previously by the Agency on this visit. The demeanour of the Ambassador and the general tone of the interview did not suggest he was under particular pressure to hide or fabricate information.

Notwithstanding the information summarized above, and in view of the fact that the IAEA so far has not obtained any other related information than the forged documents, the IAEA is not in the position to demostrate that Iraq never sought to import uranium in the past. This is the reason why the IAEA only concluded that it had "no indication that Iraq attempt to import uranium since 1990" but it would "follow up any additional evidence, if it emerges, relavent to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials". So far no such additional information has been obtained by the Agency.

503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:[list=A][*]It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.[*]The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.[*]The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.[*]The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.[/list=A]

Bush and Blair vindicated? C'mon spin it, I know you can.

[Spliffdaddy]

ouch. Gonna be tough to spin that one around.

Hmmm...where's Taliesin when you need him?

[Taliesin]Quite obviously Israel is behind this. In 1948 the senior leadership of Hamas laid the groundwork for this debacle - based on phrophecies from twenty-eight thousand year old Arab scrolls. Palestinians have witnessed such atrocities for many decades at the hands of the IDF....[/Taliesin]

[Joshua]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
nope, sorry, you have endure me screaming bloody murder. In your opinion you aren't employing character assasination, but you are hardly a noninterested party in determining that.
If you can express yourself to the point of calling someone a LIAR, I can express myself to the point that doing so is a character assasination.

So what exactly are you arguing here? Is Wilson innocent and the Senate Intelligence Committee is a part of your neocon conspiracy? Or is it just that it doesn't matter that Wilson lied--the media shouldn't report?

[tie]

Originally posted by Joshua:
The 16 words scandal erupted after Wilson claimed that 1) there was no credible evidence that Iraq sought to purchase uranium ("yellowcake") from Niger, and 2) that the Bush administration was aware of that fact but made the claim anyway. The Senate Intelligence Committee reviewed those claims.

p. 45:

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ... which said, 'among the Envoy's conclusions was that the documents may have been forged because 'the dates were wrong and the names were wrong.''

The former ambassador told Committee staff that he had no direct knowledge of how the information he provided was handled by the CIA.

...his wife, a CPD employee, suggested his name for the trip. ... a memorandum to the Deputy Chief of the CPD on February 12, 2002, from the former ambassador's wife says, 'my husband has good relations with both the PM and the former Minister of Mines (not to mention lots of French contacts), both of whom could possibly shed light on this sort of activity.'

According to the Senate report, the Bush administration was on top of the intelligence estimates. The claim in the speech represented the latest intelligence; the evidence about forgeries didn't come out until after the State of the Union speech. The relevant passage, from section I, p. 66:

At the time the President delivered the State of the Union address, no one in the IC had asked anyone in the White House to remove the sentence from the speech. CIA Iraq nuclear analysts and the Director of WINPAC told Committee staff that at the time of the State of the Union, they still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa, and they continued to hold that belief until the IAEA reported the documents were forgeries.

No good. Wilson's credibility is irrelevant here. There are two issues. One is the exposure of a CIA agent from officials within the white house. Two is the line in the SotU speech (which ties to the broader intelligence failures and misrepresentations).

(Parenthetical on Wilson's irrelevant credibility: I don't know if Wilson is the most credible whistleblower, but his blowing the whistle has turned up a lot of dirt nonetheless. The administration tried to prevent further whistleblowers by threatening Wilson's family. Perhaps there was someone extremely credible about to go public, but at this point it is moot. Moreover, at this moment, there is not much evidence against Wilson. For example, you say, "The former ambassador told Committee staff that he had no direct knowledge of how the information he provided was handled by the CIA." This was known from day one. Wilson seems somewhat confused, but it is hard to say if he is lying. In any case, it doesn't matter, and I don't care.)

You are wrong that Bush was on top of the intelligence. Your evidence is the following two quotes:

At the time the President delivered the State of the Union address, no one in the IC had asked anyone in the White House to remove the sentence from the speech.

Irrelevant. Hiding his own incompetence behind others. Why did he put the sentence into the speech if he didn't know anything about the underlying claim? A statement that the CIA had previously flagged to the White House.

CIA Iraq nuclear analysts and the Director of WINPAC told Committee staff that at the time of the State of the Union, they still believed that Iraq was probably seeking uranium from Africa, and they continued to hold that belief until the IAEA reported the documents were forgeries.

So what? Here is what I quoted in my previous post:

In January 2003, the State Department's analyst sent an e-mail message to other analysts saying that he believed that the documents obtained in Italy were fake. The "uranium purchase agreement probably is a hoax," he wrote.

I stand by my statement: Basically, Bush made a statement based on documents that were indeed known to be forgeries. As the US was about to go to war, Bush should have been on top of intelligence estimates about Iraq, and he was not.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by slow moe:


Bush and Blair vindicated? C'mon spin it, I know you can.

Vindicated? Oh absolutely. Let's see what do we have? We have a guy from a 'bad' country talking to somebody else in another country. Of course, we have no record of what they talked about - no documentation, no recordings, not even any secondary witnesses. We can suspect what they were talking about but of course there are no purchase agreements, or shipping documentation. We have more assurances from British Intelligence. No proof, but more assurances. That makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

If that isn't justification for a unilateral, preemptive invasion and occupation then what is? What more justification could someone want for the 800+ troops killed, 3000+ maimed and wounded, 5,000-10,000 estimated civilian deaths, $200 Billion price tag, or the cost of American integrity in the eyes of the world? Really. What more justification could someone want? Two guys were talking about something 'bad'.

Hey, I heard during the Martha Stewart investigation the Feds picked up increased chatter around her and her staff about purchasing some 'yellowcake'. I'm sure her source is different than Niger (a B. Crocker maybe?). Still, I guess we can expect an air-strike on her home, er, I mean 'terrorist compound' any time now? That would be justified, right? We went to war on just as much. [/end sarcasm]

So, the fact of the matter is there is still no concrete proof provided that Iraq tried to purchase uranium form Niger. Other than more references from British Intel, which they haven't made public. 'Scuse me if I'm not overwhelmed.

I want to say even if Saddam did try to buy uranium, what was he going to do with it? He certainly didn't have the equipment to process it or manufacture it into weapons. He was surrounded by coalition forces and effectively had no control of the upper or lower region of his country. He didn't have the capability and if tried to to develop weapons it would've been years till he had anything of use. That's assuming he'd be successful in the first place with the ongoing UN Weapons Inspections that everyone supported and would've have continued until Bush stopped them.

And I agree with tie. Wilson's credibility is essentially irrelevant here. He should be called on his accusations if untrue but it still doesn't justify Bush's inclusion of intelligence in the SoTU that was this thin. It was an overstated threat. Nor was it proof that we needed to rush to war.

And it still doesn't justify someone from the Administration outing a CIA Operative. That's still a felony. Probably treasonous in a time of war.

This is my favorite part (from Washington Post's breakdown of the Senate Report):

Still, it was the CIA that bore the brunt of the criticism of the Niger intelligence. The panel found that the CIA has not fully investigated possible efforts by Iraq to buy uranium in Niger to this day, citing reports from a foreign service and the U.S. Navy about uranium from Niger destined for Iraq and stored in a warehouse in Benin.

The agency did not examine forged documents that have been widely cited as a reason to dismiss the purported effort by Iraq until months after it obtained them. The panel said it still has "not published an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa."

Comforting huh? They still haven't clarified the Iraqi-Uranium purchase info 'to this day'. I feel real comfortable that Bush & Company are doing their job. Yep, they're on top of everything.

BTW, spacefreak. it was a Senate bipartisan committee that investigated this matter. It's part of their job. Not just "Lefty Democrats and liberals". Checks and Balances and all. Perhaps you should look it up. Don't let that stop you from making your hateful remarks regarding Democrats though. Even when they're based on nothing but your imagination.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I want to say even if Saddam did try to buy uranium, what was he going to do with it? He certainly didn't have the equipment to process it or manufacture it into weapons. He was surrounded by coalition forces and effectively had no control of the upper or lower region of his country. He didn't have the capability and if tried to to develop weapons it would've been years till he had anything of use. That's assuming he'd be successful in the first place with the ongoing UN Weapons Inspections that everyone supported and would've have continued until Bush stopped them.

How about kicking Saddam's ass so we, and the Iraqi people, don't have to deal with that crap anymore?

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by slow moe:
How about kicking Saddam's ass so we, and the Iraqi people, don't have to deal with that crap anymore?

I have no problem with that. Just do it on a timetable where you can build a real coalition (a al George H.W. Bush in Gulf War I), justify it based on real reasons (not fake WMD's), protect the US's ethical and moral standing, and make a plan for after the fighting stops.

I supported keeping the military pressure on Saddam. Bush's decision was to rush to war. It cost America more in lives, fortune, and reputation then it needed to.

[slow moe]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I have no problem with that. Just do it on a timetable where you can build a real coalition (a al George H.W. Bush in Gulf War I), justify it based on real reasons (not fake WMD's), protect the US's ethical and moral standing, and make a plan for after the fighting stops.

I supported keeping the military pressure on Saddam. Bush's decision was to rush to war. It cost America more in lives, fortune, and reputation then it needed to.

Containment is too costly over the long term, it doesn't make sense to do when you're stronger than the bad guy, and it doesn't do a thing to foster positive change - just look at N. Korea. A quick occupation and turn over is better for everyone.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by slow moe:
Containment is too costly over the long term, it doesn't make sense to do when you're stronger than the bad guy, and it doesn't do a thing to foster positive change - just look at N. Korea. A quick occupation and turn over is better for everyone.

Well, it worked for 12 years with Saddam. He wasn't a danger to anybody in the region, let alone the US. We were none the worse for wear.

But I wouldn't advocate that as a long term policy either. I would've supported an all-out war had Saddam kicked out the inspectors again, or was found to be supporting terrorists involved in 9/11, or found to have WMD's in violation of the UN charter.

My beef is that Bush rushed us to war unnecessarily. On false pretenses and in a haphazard manner. I think he's mismanaged every aspect of this conflict- diplomatically, politically, ethically and morally. Again, he cost more lives, money and reputation than needed.

[spacefreak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
Well, it worked for 12 years with Saddam. He wasn't a danger to anybody in the region, let alone the US. We were none the worse for wear.

But I wouldn't advocate that as a long term policy either. I would've supported an all-out war had Saddam kicked out the inspectors again, or was found to be supporting terrorists involved in 9/11, or found to have WMD's in violation of the UN charter.

My beef is that Bush rushed us to war unnecessarily. On false pretenses and in a haphazard manner. I think he's mismanaged every aspect of this conflict- diplomatically, politically, ethically and morally. Again, he cost more lives, money and reputation than needed.

Translation: vmpaul was more than happy to let 25 million people live under a brutal, murderous, thieving, raping regime forever.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Translation: vmpaul was more than happy to let 25 million people live under a brutal, murderous, thieving, raping regime forever.

Which is not, of course, what he said. I don't mean to speak for vmpaul, but a more measured approach does not necessarily mean neglect.

Besides, you voted for a guy who campaigned on the "I'm not a nation-builder" platform. How can you crow about humanitarianism when it was clearly a secondary motive for the invasion? You do it because the WMDs and your own "I have inside info that huge WMD discoveries are about to be announced" statements turned out to be illusory, as have the "greeted with flowers" political expectations.

There would've been no invasion but for 9/11 and the WMD rationale. Wolfowitz admitted it. Everyone from Colin Powell to Pat Roberts to William Buckley have effectively said that they wouldn't have supported the invasion had they known there were no WMDs. They don't pretend that they would've staged a full-scale invasion at that time for strictly humanitarian reasons.

A lot of people on both the left and right think that key aspects of the invasion were incompetently planned and executed (I would say that this is self-evident). Accusing us of being "more than happy" to let 25 million people suffer because we make this observation is a bit rich when it wasn't your main reason for going in either.

Personally, I wish Bush had placed more emphasis on humanitarian interests instead of WMDs. I think it might've served us better.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by spacefreak:
Translation: vmpaul was more than happy to let 25 million people live under a brutal, murderous, thieving, raping regime forever.

Gee spacefreak, that really hurts. Especially coming from a humanitarian such as yourself. We all know how open and embracing you are of diverse political opinions. I know how hard it must be for you to post a critical response. Sometimes I even get you confused with wdlove.

Not that your post deserves a response but...

So, if you don't advocate invasion or the US as the world's policemen then you're a supporter of tyranny? Is that your position? I guess that puts me in good company then. Would that make a Bush an appeaser because he hasn't attacked North Korea? Sudan? China? How about all the Presidents since WWII that sat idly by as the Soviet Union oppressed millions? Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Reagan - all appeasers? Nice black and white position you got there. I figure that puts you just to the right of Joseph Stalin.

[slow moe]

Second guessing is now an Olympic sport. It consists of teams of four who compete against Bush, Cheney, Condi, Powell, Ashcroft, and Rumsfield robots. The goal is to try and out second guess the robotrons using every major decision the Bush administration ever made as topics. Members of the judge's panel consists of former employees of the BBC with an ax to grind. Log onto espn.com for more details.

[daimoni]

.