Uranium documents forged from nigeria???

[Epidemic]

I am hearing that GB still stands by their report. That only one source has been discredited.

Hmmmmm,

Regarding this President George W Bush did not lie even if all the sources turn out false. In his state of the union he clearly mentioned that it was the UK's postion that Saddam was trying to acquire Yellow Cake Uranium.

[Theophylact]

That's right, Epidemic, the British say they have other sources that we can't see.

So Bush doesn't believe our CIA when they tell him the story's false; but he believes the Brits when they say that even though some of their data was bogus, they do have proof that he's not allowed to see.

Oh, yeah, that sounds good to me...

[shahani]

Duke, like to see ya talk your way outa this one.

[Epidemic]

"So Bush doesn't believe our CIA when they tell him the story's false; "

Did the CIA say the story was false or that the one document in question was forged?

[shahani]

Bush's national security adviser specifically said the CIA (news - web sites) had vetted the speech. If CIA Director George Tenet had any misgivings about that sentence in the president's speech, "he did not make them known" to Bush or his staff, said Condoleezza Rice

Bush is going to put this mess on George Tenet's head.

Full story here

Evidently, Bush doesn't want to take responsibility for anything.

Buh Bye, Mr Tenet.

(Bold letters are mine to underscore the process of blame transfer or in Washington-speak: CYA, which Bush has already started doing.)

[Theophylact]

Check Ambassador Wilson's Op-Ed piece. He went on his own, but the CIA paid his way:

In February 2002, I was informed by officials at the Central Intelligence Agency that Vice President Dick Cheney's office had questions about a particular intelligence report. While I never saw the report, I was told that it referred to a memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake — a form of lightly processed ore — by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990's. The agency officials asked if I would travel to Niger to check out the story so they could provide a response to the vice president's office.

After consulting with the State Department's African Affairs Bureau (and through it with Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, the United States ambassador to Niger), I agreed to make the trip. The mission I undertook was discreet but by no means secret. While the C.I.A. paid my expenses (my time was offered pro bono), I made it abundantly clear to everyone I met that I was acting on behalf of the United States government.

It wasn't just the forged documents; it was based on Wilson's knowledge of the situation in Niger:

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.

Given the structure of the consortiums that operated the mines, it would be exceedingly difficult for Niger to transfer uranium to Iraq. Niger's uranium business consists of two mines, Somair and Cominak, which are run by French, Spanish, Japanese, German and Nigerian interests. If the government wanted to remove uranium from a mine, it would have to notify the consortium, which in turn is strictly monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Moreover, because the two mines are closely regulated, quasi-governmental entities, selling uranium would require the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and probably the president. In short, there's simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired.

I suggest you read the whole piece.

[Epidemic]

I read the whole piece when you first posted it.

I found it to be speculative, using as its main piece of evidence the supposed difficulty of making it through the bureaucracy in Niger. I would like to know how that government obstacle would crumble with 50 or 100 million in greenbacks for people to look the other way.

In addition, I do not think the UK story said they acquired the yellow cake merely that they tried to acquire it. Their success is immaterial merely the attempt need be noted.

[Theophylact]

Okay. The CIA sends the guy it thinks best qualified to check it out; he comes back and says there's nothing there; and you say it's "speculative". But you are prepared to believe anyway, on the basis of -- what? Saddam could have tried? Sure, he could have. The question is, did he? And the answer is, "there's no evidence that he did."

[ClubMed]

Why do you even bother to put so much effort into this Theo? Don't get me wrong, I enjoy your posts, but sometimes no matter what you present people with, the Earth is still flat to them.

[Epidemic]

sometimes but other times people just cant accept that a scum bag is a scum bag and that describes saddam.

Whoops we blew him up sorry bout your luck.

good luck to the iraqis. Rather than trying to find out if our destruction of this scumbags regime was destroyed for stated purpose or not the fact remains the world is better off with out him.

If even one thing stated about the man was correct it was our duty to blow him up.

yes yes same goes for other evil dictators.

Try spending your efforts to making sure the govenment of the US does not get cold feet before allowing the Iraqis to form their government of the people for the people and by the people.


83% of iraqis want the US to stay and help put them on their feet and a higher percentage I would guess are happy saddam is gone.

[Omardeth]

why bother bush can do no wrong in some peoples eyes .

[0ptical]

Originally posted by Epidemic
fact remains the world is better off with out him.

The world would be a better place without GWB.

83% of iraqis want the US to stay and help put them on their feet and a higher percentage I would guess are happy saddam is gone.

Yeah right!! Most think we are occupiers(and we are).

[shahani]

I agree, Optical. Though the world will be better off without Saddam, it'll be best if Bush fades away.

I wonder if a poll is taken worldwide, how many people will agree that humanity will be far better off without the likes of Bush and Saddam?

[MTAtech]

This is the bottom line:
The CIA discredited the Niger reports. However, that went against what the Bush admin wanted to report to the nation.

The Brits gave a summary to th Admin - but refused to give the detail. The summary said Niger sold th stuff.

Instead of believing his own CIA, he chose to use a British summary because it had the message he wanted.

This is a clear case of using intelligence to confirm policy already decided instead of using intelligence to formulate policy.

As far a whether the world is better off without Saddam, the question is whether the resources to make the world safer would have been better spent elsewhere, such as N. Korea.

[shahani]

In other words, while Bush didn't technicaly lie, he was less than frank and straightforward. He deceived. Not lied.

Guess we'll have to keep this in mind next time he says something.

After all, one's personal integrity takes a lifetime to establish but a seconfd to lose.

[Bushmaster]

Well my theory is Halliburton sold them the yellow cake uranium through Nigeria to hide their tracks the same way they sold Libya 6 pulse neutron generators through Italy. But what do I know I read too much.

[Wizzard~Of~Ozz]

While I respect some peoples opinions that Bush is a great man with only good intents, I think it is becoming very clear taht bush was acting on his own agenda, all evidence that disproved his reasons for the war was disregarded, any evidence that supported was welcome.

Things we know so far.

GWB stated "This war is not about the oil"

First few days of conflict. "The oil fields have been secured and will be in production shortly"

GWB also stated "the cost of the war will be re-payed by IRAQ" so now he has the right to reclaim the cost of the war which is still going on, What is IRAQ's main source of income?

GWB stated "IRAQ HAS Weapons of mass destruction, and we have proof"

Now it starts coming out that his proof was false.

To those that defend GWB, If someone is up for Execution, You can be damned sure they will get a more fair trial then the one given to Iraq, In court you have to be proven guilty to a jury of more then 2 people.

[shahani]

Well, Bush and Saddam Hussein are very much alike in the way they governed except in one way:

Bush hasn't murdered any of his own countrymen.

Yet.

If you don't include the servicemen that got killed in the war.

[cyphen]

I hate to bring up a few sticky points (no i dont!).

That there was a meeting between Iraqi diplomats and officials from Niger at which the Iraqis appeared to be trying to build a better economic relationship, and Niger officials told Ambassador Wilson, according to this report, that they suspected the Iraqis were interested in trying to get some uranium.

The intel from MI6 was from several sources, and stated that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium from Niger, and possibly other sources in Africa. That quote is from an article on CNN. Wilson said that the likelihood of Iraq getting uranium from Niger wasn't feasible. He was investigating whether Iraq HAD received uranium - which it didn't. But they did TRY to purchase uranium. If Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium, then there is substantial reason to believe that Hussein was intent on reconstructing his nuclear weapons program.

Now, Theo, the CIA didn't tell anybody that the story was false, just that it couldn't substantiate it. And they were talking about the actual sale of uranium. They obviously could substantiate that there were Iraqi officials there interested in trade which the Nigerian officials suspected was based on uranium.

So Iraq did try - british intel is exhonerated, president Bush's statement should never have been in question, because it was entirely true (as Ep pointed out).

Anyone who thinks this is anything but a political attack for election purposes seriously needs to re-examine their view.

Now, Wiz... (how's it goin' BTW - i don't think i've seen you since the old sysopt days)

Originally posted by Wizzard~Of~Ozz
all evidence that disproved his reasons for the war was disregarded, any evidence that supported was welcome.

There is no evidence that disproved his reasons for war. I'll cross-examine your statements below...

Things we know so far.

GWB stated "This war is not about the oil"

First few days of conflict. "The oil fields have been secured and will be in production shortly"

The war wasn't about the oil, it was about several things including Saddam Hussein's weapons and links to terrorists. The reason the oil fields were secured (and not all were at first) was because we didn't want Saddam Hussein destroying them in a scorched earth strategy, which he has a history of. That was an ecological nightmare, and would also deprive the Iraqi people of their largest resource, not to mention being a hazard to our military and all the people nearby.

GWB also stated "the cost of the war will be re-payed by IRAQ" so now he has the right to reclaim the cost of the war which is still going on, What is IRAQ's main source of income?

I believe he said the rebuilding would be repaid by Iraq, but even if the war itself is also repaid by Iraq, it is generally incumbent on the nation that loses the war to pay for it. It's not like we're looting the country or anything. Saddam going into Kuwait was all about taking the oil, this is not. We have removed sanctions which will once again allow Iraq to sell oil, and thus fund it's reconstruction and enable it's population to become a successful state. The Iraqi people are not being robbed - we are enabling them. They will be much better off - they will have access to the riches of their country and will enjoy the benefits of them, they will have a government of the people, and they will no longer be under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein.

GWB stated "IRAQ HAS Weapons of mass destruction, and we have proof"

Now it starts coming out that his proof was false.

As i stated above, if you are referring to the uranium issue, the statement he made was true, and apparently Iraq did attempt to purchase uranium from Niger. If you are referring to the other WMD, just because they haven't been found yet is hardly proof that they didn't exist. Everybody thought they did, and Iraq did not fulfill it's obligation to prove that it did not. It instead blocked inspectors, and kept up it's old tricks. We had proof from 1998 - we all wanted to know what happened to the weapons we knew he had. He blocked all attempts to find out.

To those that defend GWB, If someone is up for Execution, You can be damned sure they will get a more fair trial then the one given to Iraq, In court you have to be proven guilty to a jury of more then 2 people.

I have stated several times before that you can't apply the tenets of the United States Constitution (which exist to protect it's citizens) to international politics and foriegn governments. They are 2 vastly separate worlds, and applying the protections of the constitution to dictators like Saddam Hussein is a recipe for disaster. I'd love for this to be a world like that, but we have a country to protect, and our enemies are already using our own Constitution against us.

[shahani]

Point is Bush said : "....imminent threat to the US from Iraqi WOMD...."

The seemingly small mistake in his State of the Union Speech is, if you go back to February, an important (for Bush) element in his build up of justification to invade Iraq. He presented the "facts" in such a definite and inflexible way to the American people that people were convinced.

Now its all falling apart and what does Bush do? No get in front of the nation and expalin his mistake and apologize for it. He makes his staff take the heat.

Then he goes on to say he has full faith and supports Tenet.

I have never witnessed such a gutless and cowardly position from the Office of the President.