Wilson’s Niger claims
Letter writer Jeff Kocsis (“Time line failed to note Wilson charade,” March 19) says Joseph Wilson’s claims about Niger and Iraq were debunked by the 9/11 commission.
Perhaps someone should tell that to then-press secretary Ari Fleischer who admitted on July 7, 2003, that “Now, we’ve long acknowledged — and this is old news, we’ve said this repeatedly — that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.” Bush may or may not have lied (as Wilson asserts), but the truth was certainly not told in the State of the Union Address!
The source of that quote from Fleischer is not some left- or right-wing blogger. It’s from the White House Web site: whitehouse.gov/
news/releases/2003/07/20030707-5.html.
Derek Scruggs, Boulder
Thank you Derek. It'll be interesting to see how the pro-Bush zealots try to spin this. You may be sure that they won't accept the facts as facts, and that they will try to refocus the issue on something else that is not so embarrassing, or would be to a person of integrity who had been attacking Wilson.
Posted by Truth on April 4, 2007 05:47 AMTruth,
What Bush said was,
"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Which was true. In fact the British continue to make the case today while the Italians disagree.
Yes, he might have said "The British government believes..." bit I don't think what Bush said matters.
You are determined to believe that Bush lied about WMD no matter how fatuous the charge.
Joe Wilson, on the other hand, is a serial liar beginning with how he got the job in the first place. That's why Kerry through him off the sled during his presidential campaign.
You ought to be more careful about calling people zealots.
Posted by jim j on April 4, 2007 06:08 AMAnd you, Jim J, ought to be more careful about claiming that someone is calling Bush a liar. While it is clear to me that the Bush administration intentionally deceived Congress and the American people in order to advance its agenda of going to war with Iraq, and while I do believe the Bush lied, I did not express that opinion. Why do you step beyond the truth and claim that I did?
If you think there are not a lot of zealots posting on this forum, then you have little understanding of what zealotry is.
While I didn't call Bush a liar, as you falsely claimed, you did cavalierly call Wilson a serial liar without providing any support for your accusation. You ought to be more careful about that sort of thing.
The question was whether Wilson's claim about the yellow cake was correct: the Bush administration confirmed that it was.
How naive can you be? Bush was not just giving a news report. Bush's statement about the uranium was made for the specific purpose of advancing his agenda to go to war with Iraq by trying to make Iraq look more dangerous than in fact it was. He had good reason to know that the British statement was false but he referred to that statement nonetheless as though it were true. That is deception, plain and simple. The same deception was practiced on the American people with respect to the aluminum tubes, part of an attempt to be less than honest and candid with us in order to convince us, and Congress, that we faced a danger which we did not in fact face.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3056626.stm
"The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned."
"Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.
On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and suggested it should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January. "
" But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech."
Bottom line is that we were not in imminent danger and there was not a need for us to turn away from Afghanistan (where we were actually fighting the war on terror) and invade Iraq. Dick'n'Bush planned on invading Iraq from day one and shamefully used 9/11 as an excuse. I hope there is a judgement day for both of them. We should only go to war as a last resort and no one can argue that was the case. Not even Fox News
Posted by Daisy on April 4, 2007 07:41 AMTruth it is not worth our time to provide "facts" for Jim J, He is going to make up his own facts and that is what he will be governed by. He is one of those with his lips locked to the "arse" of Bush and believes that Bush can do no wrong. Sad to say that is the way it is in this once great country that Bush has destroyed.. Faux News still claims the same thing that Jim J does and they are "Fair and Balanced".
Posted by Ron 2 on April 4, 2007 08:50 AMWho actually buys what the media sells them? Fools and damned fools.
Posted by on April 4, 2007 09:00 AM"Faux News"
When I hear that term it reminds me of people who cover their ears and yell la la la la la so they won't have to hear the truth. Ignorance is bliss.
Posted by KW on April 4, 2007 09:15 AMK-dub,
You must be a very happy young lady, indeed!
It has to be a great advantage not to have those pesky "facts" get you to thinking for yourself.
We ALL need to check things out for ourselves, and come to INFORMED conclusions.
"Faux Lies" is probably closer to the truth. It is for those who yell la la la la la so they won't hear what the rest of the world is saying.
Wilson did his job and his assessment was spot on. The lying Bushbots have been told to disregard the accuracy of Wilson's report and focus on his connection to his wife. Typical misdirection to muddy the waters. The only charade in this affair is the attempts of the Bushbots to promote a mythical version of the events.
Posted by Wes on April 4, 2007 10:52 AMKW, you obviously are not interested in the truth, and thank you for referring to me as being ignorant, it only shows your lack of intelligence.
Posted by Ron 2 on April 4, 2007 11:09 AMJimJ
Which was true. In fact the British continue to make the case today while the Italians disagree.
um.. no. to say they “learned” something is an assertion of truth. The brits didn’t say it was so, and in fact had said they doubted the veracity of the claim. So to say that the brits “learned that…,” is in fact untrue. Being “told” X, is very different from “learning that” X.
And no, the brits are not continuing to “make the case”. They freely admit it was bogus information.
KW: ""Faux News"
When I hear that term it reminds me of people who cover their ears and yell la la la la la so they won't have to hear the truth. Ignorance is bliss."
I fully agree with KW's description of Faux News. I was a little surprised, though, that KW would admit to it. Maybe he is growing up.
Posted by on April 4, 2007 01:15 PMTruth,
This time I'll quote myself,
You are determined to believe that Bush lied about WMD no matter how fatuous the charge.
That statement was made on the numerous exchanges we have had over the past few weeks. Of course you know that.
However, if you want to pretend that I had no way of knowing that you think Bush lied and therefore you were vicitmized by a false claim, I understand. In fact the self-delusion typical
For you it will never be sufficient that Bush was mistaken. No, he must have lied. Because if Bush lied, then he is evil. And if Bush is evil then you must be good for holding him in such contempt.
You feeling good about being you - That's what it's all about.
I guess that last comment of mine musta hurt a bit. Truth can do that you know.
Posted by KW on April 4, 2007 01:41 PMCome on Jim J. Truth pulls direct quotes such as " But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech." Did you read that? The Whitehouse knew it was a false claim well before the speech. Stating something you know to be untrue is in fact a LIE (and I don't even need help determining what the meaning of "is" is to make that stick).
J
You guys are forever cherry picking quotes from the BBC or CNN or wherever and based on that telling us dispositvely who knew what when. Smith did not issue a written report and even if he did it could not possibly have been conclusive.
All the man said was that the Brits thought Saddam was after yellow cake. Saddam was also in violation of two dozen UN resolutions going back over a decade because he had failed to comply with the surrender terms that he disarm the WMD.
Everybody from Hans Blick to Hillary Clinton to Jaques Chirac thought Saddam had WMD. Saddam probably thought it himself.
I have some fundamental questions.
How is it that Bush, and Bush alone, knew that Saddam had no WMD?
Why didn't Bush have a good excuse ready when no WMD were found? Or better yet, why didn't they falsify a finding?
Posted by James Jones on April 4, 2007 02:21 PMI have been saying a lot of amens lately but amen to you James Jones, I couldn't agree more.
Posted by troll on April 4, 2007 02:57 PMJames, so you reckon he and all his advisors are simply stupid and ignorant rather than evil?
Ok, that's a far better option.
Unknown,
Your inability to distinguish between wrong and evil ranks you right alongside the other moral pretend thinkers on this issue.
Posted by James Jones on April 4, 2007 03:52 PMKW your last comment did not hurt. I only wanted to point out your lack of intelligence and also, when I see or read your comments , I go la, la,la, la as I don't care for BS.
Posted by Ron 2 on April 4, 2007 06:07 PMJames Jones: 'Everybody from Hans Blick to Hillary Clinton to Jaques Chirac thought Saddam had WMD. Saddam probably thought it himself."
Hans Blix:
JIM LEHRER: The prime minister elect of Spain said on Monday that the United States and Britain organized the war on Iraq with lies. From the standpoint of weapons of mass destruction, do you agree with that?
HANS BLIX: Well, they certainly advanced weapons of mass destruction as the decisive reason for going to war, and I think the evidence was rather weak at the time. We had heard in the autumn of 2002 that the alleged aluminum tubes, for instance, which were thought, alleged to be for making the centrifuges, were probably more likely to be for making a rocket. And in January 2003, we had performed quite a lot of inspections to sites which were given by intelligence and they had not shown any weapons of mass destruction, so we began to be doubtful.
And among the 700 inspections that we performed, none brought us any evidence of weapons of mass destruction. I warned the Security Council about that. Yet, there might have been other evidence and Colin Powell came before the Security Council and he brought some evidence, which we could not check. And I think that by now most of the evidence has fallen apart.
Anything that really suggested that they had weapons of mass destruction was taken for evidence without a thorough examination.
Well, if you had asked me in December 2002, what is your gut feeling, I would have said I'm not here to have any gut feelings. I'm here to inspect. But as we went into more inspections in January, then I became... and we didn't find any weapons, I became more skeptical. And of course when Mr. El Baradei of the IAEA reported that the famous contract on import of uranium oxide was a forgery, there was an accumulation of indications that evidence was shaky. So we became doubtful.
James Jones: "
Jacques Chirac:
Q. If there is a war, what do you see as the consequences for the Middle East?
THE PRESIDENT The consequences of war would be considerable in human terms. In political terms, it would destabilize the entire region. It's very difficult to explain that one is going to spend colossal sums of money to wage war when there may be another solution yet is unable to provide adequate aid to the developing world.
Q. Why do you think fallout from a war would be so much graver than Tony Blair and George Bush seem to?
THE PRESIDENT I simply don't analyze the situation as they do. Among the negative fallout would be inevitably a strong reaction from Arab and Islamic public opinion. It may not be justified, and it may be, but it's a fact. A war of this kind cannot help giving a big lift to terrorism. It would create a large number of little bin Ladens. Muslims and Christians have a lot to say to one another, but war isn't going to facilitate that dialogue. I'm against the clash of civilizations; that plays into the hands of extremists. There is a problem: the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right to be disturbed by this situation, and it's right in having decided Iraq should be disarmed. The inspections began, and naturally it is a long and difficult job. We have to give the inspectors time to do it. And probably (and this is France's view ) we have to reinforce their capacities, especially those of aerial surveillance. For the moment, nothing allows us to say inspections don't work.
Q. But you seem willing to put the onus on inspectors to find arms rather than on Saddam to declare what he's got. Are there nuclear arms in Iraq?
THE PRESIDENT I don't think so. Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them. In its current situation, does Iraq, controlled and inspected as it is, pose a clear and present danger to the region? I don't believe so. Given that, I prefer to continue along the path laid out by the Security Council. Then we'll see.
Q. What evidence would justify war?
THE PRESIDENT It's up to the inspectors to decide. We gave them our confidence. They were given a mission, and we trust them. If we have to give them greater means, we'll do so. It's up to them to come before the Security Council and say, "We won. It's over. There are no more weapons of mass destruction," or "It's impossible for us to fulfill our mission. We're coming up against Iraqi ill will and impediments." At that point, the Security Council would have to discuss this report and decide what to do. In that case, France would naturally exclude no option.
Q. But without Iraqi cooperation, even 300 inspectors can't do the job.
THE PRESIDENT That's correct, no doubt. But it's up to the inspectors to say so. I'm betting that we can get Iraq to cooperate more. If I'm wrong, there will still be time to draw other conclusions. When a regime like Saddam's finds itself caught between certain death and abandoning its arms, I think it will make the right choice. But I can't be certain.
Posted by Truth on April 4, 2007 06:56 PMTruth,
Did you intend to make some point with all that?
Posted by James Jones on April 4, 2007 07:22 PMThe juxtaposition of your post and the facts.
Posted by Truth on April 4, 2007 08:46 PMTruth,
Hans Blix never seemed to understand that he was not sent to Iraq to play hide and seek with the WMD. He was sent there to determine if Saddam had complied with the terms of his surrender. That shouldn't have taken 12 years. It shouldn't have taken 12 days. But, it never happened.
After a couple of years on the job Hans was still telling us that he needed more time to make the determination. If Hans thought Saddam had complied he could have just so. He never did.
You did not provide a date for this interivew but it's obvious he would remain vague at least until the funding ran out.
Chirac on the other hand was straightforward. From your post,
"Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them."
Now I have no doubt that you read this and genuinely convinced yourself that Chirac contradicted my statement. I have no doubt you see a juxstaposition of the facts and my post.
I have no doubt that you read my original post and thought that I had no basis for claiming you had accused Bush of lying.
You have a remarkable capacity for self-delusion that allows you to believe whatever it is you want to believe. There is nothing - no logic, no facts, no plain reading of your own post that is going to persuade you of anything you don't wish to believe.
I don't think you are a bad person. The problem is that you can't handle the truth.
I have to wonder if any of you guys even know the background on this issue? Here's a little run-down:
Saddam had 500 tons + of the yellow cake uranium on-hand at the end of Gulf War 1. This was “sealed” by the IAEA, and was subject to inspections by Hans Bliks and company. One of the problems they had with “weapons inspections” was the Iraqi shell-game involving these 500 tons of uranium, and here is a link to show how dopey those inspections teams were:
www.iaea.org/Publications/Booklets/Iraq/event.html
Check that out, and then see if you want to quote Hans Bliks anymore. The most surprising thing about him and the other inspectors is that they traveled by plane, when it seems it would have been more natural for them to all arrive in a little car and pile out like the circus clowns the were. This was 1992.
In 1999, the British Government came to the conclusion that Saddam was tying to buy more uranium. The reason they thought that was because they knew- and this is not in dispute by anyone- that Iraqi officials had been meeting with officials from Niger. The Brits got a hold of a memo that said Iraq wanted to buy 500 tons of uranium. That memo turned out to be a forgery, but help me out here: If not uranium, what was Iraq after? Niger exports only uranium ore, livestock, cowpeas, and onions. Which one was Saddam after? Folks, the fact that the memo was a forgery does not mean that Iraq was not after uranium. It might mean there was no memo, but some petty clerk in Niger knew what was up and decided to try to make a buck off the British intelligence folks who were asking the questions. OBVIOUSLY, Saddam sent his people over to talk about uranium. He just didn't close the deal for some reason. What reason could that be? How about, because he had a better deal somewhere else? Like, say, maybe the Congo? Heres a link to the Butler Review
www.butlerreview.org.uk/index.asp
and the Senate Select Committee on Pre War Iraq Intelligence
intelligence.senate.gov/
BOTH of which acknowledge Saddam was trying to get uranium form other sources in Africa.
When Joe Wilson went to Niger, it was not to find out if Saddam was trying to get uranium, it was to find out if Saddam was tying to get it from Niger. We already knew he was trying to get it, the question was only, who in Africa do we need to keep an eye on?
So, why the big deal on saying “Niger” instead of “Congo” in the State of the Union Address? Well, here's a clue- follow this link
www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005686
to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece discussing the “insurgency” that a faction of the CIA was engaged in in the weeks leading up to the 2004 presidential election. Somebody jumped on that choice- to say “Saddam is trying to get uranium from Niger” instead of “from Congo.” Big deal, huh? What was going on was that the CIA was taking heat for missing the 9/11 plot, and they were pissed at Bush for throwing them under the bus by noticing they screwed up on that.
That's actually the argument about the Plame thing: Was Cheny or Rove or somebody else trying to discredit Wilson and the CIA ? Sure, probably so. The CIA was leaking stuff to hurt Bush. Did they “out “ Plame to try to get her killed? Well, my answer is “don't be silly.” Some people have a different take. But did they want to discredit Wilson? Very likely so. “Outing” Plame had nothing to do with discrediting Wilson, who was calling every reporter he could find to try to peddle his “I wrote a report that the Veep ask me for, and which I think went to the President!” story. Saying, “Cheny didn't send him- his wife did,” did have something to do with discrediting Wilson. And the report Wilson wrote was, “No evidence of yellow cake sales to Iraq from Niger.” Not, “Iraq was never here.” We know they were. Not, “Saddam doesn't even want yellow cake.” We know he did. Just, “I can't prove Saddam was trying to buy yellow cake here in Niger. I think he was after the onions. Or maybe cowpeas.”
Big deal.
Mr. Trimble,
I appreciate your bringing these facts forward. Unfortunatley I have very little confidence that you will be persuasive.
Their mantra "Bush lied and died" is fatuous on its face. I've tried arguing the point logically as opposed adducing facts as you have here.
You can see from Truth's responses that the ignorance is impenetrable because it is willful. There are none so blind as those who will not see.
I have learned that they must regard themsevles not just as right but as good. But they can't be good if Bush, or you and I for that matter, are not evil.
If we are only wrong, then they are only right. And that's not sufficient. So they make Bush, and us, evil and thereby make themselves good. That explains the mocking and name-calling. Good doesn't negotiate with evil.
It's an interesting pathology.
Again, I do appreciate your research and bringing these facts forward. It is true that the light dispels the darkness.
Well done.
Posted by James Jones on April 5, 2007 06:02 AMJames Jones:
"You can see from Truth's responses that the ignorance is impenetrable because it is willful."
You cited Blix and Chirac, not me. I simply supplied their actual words without comment and you call that willful and impenetrable ignorance. You have the integrity of an alley cat but lack its brain power.
Posted by Truth on April 5, 2007 08:13 AMJones' idea is that if you don't agree with him you are pathological. That is a not uncommon attitude of people who are pathological.
Posted by Frank L. on April 5, 2007 09:16 AMTruth,
A question:
If Jacques Chirac says of the possibity of WMD in Iraq,
"Are there other weapons of mass destruction? That's probable. We have to find and destroy them."
Does Jacque mean
A) Saddam has WMD or
B) Saddam doesn't have WMD?
Frank L.
Patholigical is actually an adjective. It's considered better form to insult someone using a noun as the subect of your sentence. For instance you might have posted,
Jones is a pathological liar.
I hope that helps.
Posted by James Jones on April 5, 2007 10:06 AM"Jones is a pathological liar."
Well said, I couldn't have put it better myself.
Posted by on April 5, 2007 03:37 PMSo it seems that Michael Trimble has been hording all the "facts" that show the administration was completey above board in their actions. What a joke. The administration knew they were lying. The adminstration had planned for an invasion of Iraq since well before 9/11. The administration perpetrated 9/11 to justify the attack. I will leave it to Truth to post the relevant PNAC passages that show the neocons litterally pined for a 9/11 event. Even if they did not do it (and they DID) what kind of Americans are they for WISHING FOR IT TO HAPPEN to speed up their imperialistic agenda as spelled out in the PNAC report of September 2000?
Posted by J on April 5, 2007 04:19 PMBush did lie! No not about Wmd"s- he was misled, no when he got the "authoritization" to use force he stated "I will use force only as a measure of last resort." That was a lie. He had no intention of letting diplomatic/inspections continue any longer than necessary.
Posted by Ken on April 5, 2007 11:17 PMJ
" The administration perpetrated 9/11 to justify the attack"
So... you think Bush blew the Twin Towers so he could send the army to Iraq- is that what you just said?
Um... the "9/11 was a government conspiracy” thread is down the hall. You should definitely go check that out... we're talking about the Wilson/Niger/Uranium/State of the Union thing in here. It's, like, really boring for you high-power thinkers... Don't worry, we'll let you back in here if you want, like, um, after you sober up... so, it's cool, dude, really- just chill a while with the nutjobs- I mean, um, the guys in the “9/11” room, cuz, they've been waiting for you for a while now... and, like there's some hot chicks and stuff in there, and some good smoke, so, see you in a while, right, bud?...
Pssst! James Jones!
Hey, did you hear J? Bud, we got to get him somewhere he can't hurt himself or anything, bud. Yeah, he's like, out of it. So, don't say anything loud or anything, let's just get him somewhere to sleep it off, okay? I think he'll be okay when he wakes up- except for a really bad headache, maybe...
Ken
The inpections had been ongoing for about a decade with no result. How long should it have taken for Saddam to demonstrate compliance with the terms of his surrender?
Posted by James Jones on April 6, 2007 05:26 AMMichael Trimble
Acutally I think heavy drinking might improve J's cognitive abilities.
Posted by James Jones on April 6, 2007 05:29 AM