Features

Preechr · #1

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."~ W

1. Three months BEFORE the State of The Union address, the President received approval from Congress to use military force against Iraq.

2. The classified 10/2 National Intelligence Estimate contains "a lengthy section in which most agencies of the intelligence community judged that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program," according to George Tenet.

3. You need uranium to do that.

4. Niger's principle export is yellowcake (uranium.)

5. The N.I.E. states: "We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources." It does not say we cannot confirm whether Iraq tried to do so.

6. The N.I.E. also states that "a foreign government service reported that as of early 2001 Niger planned to send several tons of 'pure uranium' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement."

7. In the next paragraph, the NIE goes on to say that "reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo." It then adds that "we cannot confirm whether Iraq has succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources." Again, it doesn't say that we cannot confirm that attempts weren't made.

8. N.I.E.s represent a consensus of the Intelligence Community, not just one or a few people's opinions.

9. According to a new BBC report, in 1999 an official of Niger had been approached "by an unnamed businessman about expanding trade between Niger and Iraq."

10. British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw this week told the BBC: "Former Niger government officials believe that this was in connection with the procurement of yellowcake."

11. The N.I.E. also states that "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" and that "acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons."

kellychaos · #2

Bennett · #3

"could be," "possibly" "reportedly," vs. "has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought"

thanks for the news flash.

mburbank · #4

Points 1-3 don't realte at all to the Presidents statement.

Point 4 is utterly circumstantial. One of our principle exports is computer tech. Does that mean Sadam got his computer chips from us?

Point 5 is sophistry and just the sort of word parsing this administration promised not to resort to. It's nice it says it, but what are the facts that back it up? Are they more or less reliable than the forged Nigerian Documents?

Point 6 'a foreign government'... hard to check that one out, but a good guess would be England. You know, the guys who 'learned' about this transaction, and are sticking by it, based on other evidence that they won't share even with their allies? Why, exactly, especially now that the Sadams government has fallen?

Point 7: as long as we are parsing, 'reports indicate' is not that same as 'confirming'. Have thesee reports been submitted to rigorous background checks to see if they aren't.... you know... really bad forgeries?

point 8: Really? Can you ellaborate on that? Since the CIA seemed more than willing to allow corrupted information into the state of the union speech, which agencies are we talking about, and how is this 'consensus' vetted? And prior to vetting how many tikmes does Dick Chenney get to visit?

Point 9: No way, seriously? An unamed businessman? An unamed official? That's pretty damning evidence. It makes me think of the unamed iraqi scientist pointing to a burried cache of weapons of mass destruction. I'd want to know something about where this intel came from and if the BBC has yet investigated the claim or is merely reporting a report.

Point 10. Your first even remotely valid point. But Jack Straw will need to do an awful lot more than just make claims. His PM's constituency is even more irate about the flimsyness of the case than W's is. He's very high level official to stick his neck out, but if concidering the only publicly vetted piece of intel on this whole issue turns out to be a really, really, really bad forgery, I think I'll want more than just his word.

point 11: "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" If the evidence is solid, show it.

"acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons." Based on that statement, we should probably pre-empt the entire non nuclear world.

sspadowsky · #5

Never mind that the principal source of "intelligence" used in the claim was dismissed as a forgery, and a bad one at that, nearly a year before the SOtU address.

Also, see here, as well as the links included therein: http://slate.msn.com/id/2085689/ (Thanks, Max)

Enjoy. The Bush administration has been furiously grasping at straws for a long time trying to prove the existence of WMD, and they have failed miserably. All signs point to a large quantity of bullshit, baked fresh for you at the White House. You know the old saying: "If it wakls like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's probably a group of lying, money-grubbing bastards screwing the country."

mburbank · #6

Preech;

In your sig, you state

"Make Yourselves Sheep, and Wolves WILL Eat You."

An admirable sentiment. Why then are you so ready, I might say even eager, to believe so much thoroughly unsubstantiated information? The baathist government has fallen. I see no compelling need for such high level of continued secrecy, and in my experience, when the government says 'you just have to trust us' they're usually bending you over.

Isn't it... kind of... sheepish to just assume you're being told the truth?

Preechr · #7

No No... See, I'm not attempting to justify anything here... I'm just attacking the "He LIED!!!" BS that is just the latest attempt to pile on any little perceived nick in the administration's armor.

I'm just culling the Bush-haters from the anti-war crowd. I have no problem with actual intellectual protest of this "war" or all wars. That message is unfortunately diluted by comingling with partisan politicos, which makes it entirely too easy for the right to dismiss all anti-war folks as anti-Bush or anti-America.

The true anti-war crowd is focusing its effort on stopping the bleeding in Iraq, and should be applauding the efforts made by our military to wage one of the most humane conflict efforts in history. The anti-Bush crowd is nitpicking whatever they can find, past, present or even future, in hopes of damaging the Republicans' chances in '04.

For the record, I've only voted for one Republican so far, and no Dems. I vote Libertarian.

mburbank · #8

Oh. Fine, I guess.

Another article in Slate posits the reason for the media frenzy over this particular lie (or trumped up piece of ill supported crap goes down better) mostly has to do with the fact the adminsitartion has the bed amnners to admit it's mistake.

I think that's certainly part of it, since the forgery story has been reported in small press for a couple of months now. It only aquired media momentum once Ari Fleischer admitted the infampous 16 words should not have been in the state of the union speech former ambassador Wilson came forward and said he investigated the overall claim and found it lacking over a year ago. The administration retalliated by telling syndicated columnist Bob Novak that Wislon's wife is a covert operative for the CIA, thus blowing her cover, potentially endangering her life and certainly destroying her careeer. I thought that was kind of sweet, even if it is illegal.

I would agree with you the huge frenzy is inappropriatte. Of course Bush lied. He's president of the united states and his lips were moving.

Preechr · #9

I'll buy that. Our elected officials are supposed to keep secrets and make decisions based on secret information. I'd like to see more transparency in government, myself... a reverse of the Homeland Security efforts being made to secure us for the sake of our leaders. Whatever can be safely known should be known as quickly as possible, IMO. I think that's the only way that we could possibly evict politics from every decision made in DC.

mburbank · #10

COMMON GROUND, BABY! I'm all about transperency.

Preechr · #11

Quote:

Originally Posted by mburbank

Points 1-3 don't realte at all to the Presidents statement.

Quote:

They relate to the "He LIED!!!" hysteria. Our decision to go to war was not at all dependent on the State of the Union address or that little bitty comment it contained.

Point 4 is utterly circumstantial. One of our principle exports is computer tech. Does that mean Sadam got his computer chips from us?

Quote:

Niger doesn't have anything else to offer Iraq, at least nothing Iraq couldn't get anywhere else in the world.

Point 5 is sophistry and just the sort of word parsing this administration promised not to resort to. It's nice it says it, but what are the facts that back it up? Are they more or less reliable than the forged Nigerian Documents?

Quote:

I don't know. BS doesn't normally make it all the way into an NIE, so it's relevant. To blanketly disregard it is to unfairly doubt our Intelligence Community's ability to collect facts and make assessments, which isn't a supportable basis to fight from. Despite it's failings, our Intel is as good or better than anyone else's... and it is inarguably VERY good.

Point 6 'a foreign government'... hard to check that one out, but a good guess would be England. You know, the guys who 'learned' about this transaction, and are sticking by it, based on other evidence that they won't share even with their allies? Why, exactly, especially now that the Sadams government has fallen?

Quote:

Yep. UK intelligence. They have disclosed more info in private committee meetings with relevantly concerned intelligence agencies from Coalition nations, according to Mr. Straw, but they've yet to publicize this stuff, other than to say it has now been discussed privately...

Point 7: as long as we are parsing, 'reports indicate' is not that same as 'confirming'. Have thesee reports been submitted to rigorous background checks to see if they aren't.... you know... really bad forgeries?

Quote:

The entire issue is not completely dependent on those "forged" documents. The Brits are standing by their original assesment of the topic based on twelve years of other, assumedly less forged, intelligence.

point 8: Really? Can you ellaborate on that? Since the CIA seemed more than willing to allow corrupted information into the state of the union speech, which agencies are we talking about, and how is this 'consensus' vetted? And prior to vetting how many tikmes does Dick Chenney get to visit?

Quote:

"Thus the first, and by all odds most important, legal and constitutional aspect of the National Intelligence Estimate is that it was and is the Director's estimate, and its findings are his. Although many experts from perhaps all intelligence components of the community participated in the production of the papers in the NIE series, and although the intelligence chiefs themselves formally passed on the final text, they could not bend its findings to suit their own judgments contrary to the will of the DCI. They could try to win him to their sides by full and free discussions, but they could not outvote him and force him to join them, nor could they make him dissent from them, even though they constituted a clear majority of the Intelligence Advisory Board, Intelligence Advisory Committee, or the Untied States Intelligence Board as it was successively known. By the same token, the DCI could not oblige them to join him in a matter at dispute. They could of their own accord concur with his findings, or, not being able to, they could dissent and make their alternative views known in footnotes to his text.

http://www.cia.gov/csi/books/shermankent/5law.html

Point 9: No way, seriously? An unamed businessman? An unamed official? That's pretty damning evidence. It makes me think of the unamed iraqi scientist pointing to a burried cache of weapons of mass destruction. I'd want to know something about where this intel came from and if the BBC has yet investigated the claim or is merely reporting a report.

Quote:

Surely you don't require full knowledge of every bit of information regarding everything pertaining to an issue before you can make a decision other than "I doubt it." Things are classified for a reason, even if it's just because the government is slow as Hell to de-classify innocuous details of mundane events.

In this case, I'd say that there's a pretty good reason to keep some of this stuff secret. I'd say those unnamed sources are still pretty worried about their lives, wouldn't you?

Point 10. Your first even remotely valid point. But Jack Straw will need to do an awful lot more than just make claims. His PM's constituency is even more irate about the flimsyness of the case than W's is. He's very high level official to stick his neck out, but if concidering the only publicly vetted piece of intel on this whole issue turns out to be a really, really, really bad forgery, I think I'll want more than just his word.

Quote:

Yep. I bet they as well as W's administration are scrambling to determine what can and what cannot be de-classified to quell the mobs that are calling for their heads on platters. Again, I'd say that's an indication that there are pretty good reasons why these things are being kept secret for now.

point 11: "Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" If the evidence is solid, show it.

Quote:

*points up to last comment*

"acquiring either would shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons." Based on that statement, we should probably pre-empt the entire non nuclear world.

Quote:

...or maybe just the rougue one's that are illegally pursuing WMD programs to threaten the world with... :D

Bennett · #12

wait a minute: our decision wasn't dependant on the State of the Union address, but we should still pre-emptively strike rogue states that are pursuing wmd's?

CaptainBubba · #13

How can this argument possibly still be going on. Bush said he knew that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. He didn't.

Stop being a Clinton.

ItalianStereotype · #14

at this point, WHO THE FUCK CARES? the war came and went, but we are still unable to establish and maintain stability in Iraq. troops are still dying and people are still quibbling over the "he said, she said" that all politicians do.

Zhukov · #15

Who the fuck cares?

The Anti-Bush crowd. I think Preechrs satement "culling the Bush-haters from the anti-war crowd" was spot on. Id say that most Politicians don't give a rats arse about Iraq - unless it gives them some way to hoist themselves up the ladder of 'sucess'. At the moment, Bush being a cunt is the best way for politicians to make themselves look good.[/quote]

KevinTheOmnivore · #16

Anti-Bush and proud.

Fuck this condescending "I'm culling them from them" nonsense. I didn't vote for the man. I don't support the man on 95% of the things he does. When I actually do agree with him, I give the devil his due. This doesn't mean I hate him, nor does it mean I'm going to pull a Pat Robertson and pray for colon cancer or something on him.

One of the most clever things that some folks on the Right have done is convincing Leftists and Liberals that it's not okay to be partisan. If the Left's equivalent to Grover Norquist called bi-partisan politics "date rape," the Sean Hannitys of the world would be declaring Liberal treason or some other bullshit.

Be proud of what you believe, stop pussey footing around it. God damn. Sorry, had to vent.

Dole · #17

" one of the most humane conflict efforts in history"

what a crock of shit.

ranxer · #18

plenty of folks care that bush lied about reasons for americans to die. what's it at now? average of 2.5 soldiers dead a day 'after' the war? i love the sign i saw the other day.. 'how many lives per gallon george?'

lieing about taxes, or blowjobs just don't compare to lieing about reasons to kill tens of thousands of people, damn!

BBC (Greg Palast) put out a great program on Bush.. take a look at
the vid:
http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/bush...y_fortunes.wmv

mburbank · #19

I'm sorry, Preech, I find your response VERY sheepish. It alll boils town to "But they said it's true, why would they lie?"

And I agree with Kev. I dislike Bush intensely. I think he is a very bad president. I think calling him on every lie and badgering him relentlessly makes it a litlle harder for him to do the next awful thing he's got up his sleave. I think if he isn't held as accountable as possible you widen the already large credulity gap, and eventually end up with a commander in chief who need say nothing more than 'because I say so' to justify any action at all.

And my heart bleeds if all this media scurtiny is tough and distractifying on ol' W. It comes with the territory, as Clinton found out when he was stupid enough to lie about a blowjob.

The right is very comfortable with absolutely brutal no holds barred politics as long as they're the only ones engaged in it. At least the left's version of 'he said she said' has to do with lives and preventing the president from excercising unlimmited power.

I'll side with ANY politician who comes out strongly and credibly in favor of checks and balances.

Preechr · #20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dole

" one of the most humane conflict efforts in history"

what a crock of shit.

You're either kidding, being a smartass, or you have no military knowledge whatsoever. If you can look at the actual prosecution of the war without worrying about whether it was right or wrong to be there at all, the Coalition did an amazing job of taking over a country, both in a miltary sense (they pulled off maneuvers that have never succeeded, ever) and in a humanitarian sense (forget about fruit of a spoiled tree here. Consider the rediculously low human cost of this war as compared to ANY other conflict.)

Separate your feelings for Bush the man and Republicans the party from the American Military for a moment. The women and men on the ground in the middle east are the products of our society, and they are showing a capacity for thought and compassion never before seen in trained soldiers, while retaining their ability to be the most effective weapons ever fielded.

While W et al were calling the shots, the people pulling the triggers have done an exceptional job at doing what they were told in the BEST manner possible.

And Kevin, we must have different ideas of what being partisan means. In our current age of socially engineered politicians, I really don't see how it would be possible for a thinking person to actually agree with an entire party line 100%, or even entirely agree with any one politician, without noticing all the contradictions.

If you can accept bad ideas on a "better of two evils" basis, you are much less particular than I. You seem pretty discriminating in your beliefs, or at least vocal, so I'd have to counter your statement with: It may be one of the most clever tricks the far left has ever pulled off to convice people like you that it's actually Ok to BE partisan.

mburbank · #21

Baaaaaa.... Baaaaaaa....

'Humane conflict effort ' as a substitute for the word 'War' is hysterical in any context, as long as you like black comedy.

'Humane war' is an oxymoron. Sure it was significantly less brutal than it could have been, but you're asking to discount questions of right and wrong is bizarre.

Even if it was right, it's a hell of stretch to use 'humane' as a word to describe the dropping of bombs. If it was wrong, then it's mass murder.

How about "In a total moral vaccuum and viewed purely as an excercise devoid of content, less people died than would have if other strategies were employed."

That's like saying the guy who runs over a single toddler was involved in a 'humane automobile accident' when compared with the guy who drove through the California market.'

Zhukov · #22

Quote:

Consider the rediculously low human cost of this war as compared to ANY other conflict.

ZANZIBAR V POMS, only 500 dead! Duh! Learn your military history!

Although there are varying variables....

Also, I think we should start counting only after "conflict" has ended, or when the last "coalition" helicopter flys off the roof of the US embassy.

Along with alot of people I was against the war, but when I saw that the zoo in Baghdad was up and running a tear came to my eye. Hats of to the "coalition", they have done a tip top job in Iraq.