TalkLeft: The Politics Of Crime

Rep. Waxman to Hold PlameGate Hearing | 87 comments (87 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Repeating falsehood does not make them true (none / 0) (#55)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:30:35 AM EST

Perhaps the Congressman from CA will also call Mrs. Wilson's husband, who certainly should explain a variety of things.

Sure I have no problem with that.

He should also call the CIA management team who dispatched Mr. Wilson instead of a qualified agent for an explanation that includes why Wilson wasn't required to submit a written report.

Wrong. Wilson was qualified for the job. He was a former member of the National Security team. He was a diplomat in the US Embassy in Baghdad during the first Gulf war. He was formerly a diplomat in Niger, and an ambassador in Africa. He had been sent by the CIA previously for a mission in Niger. He had all the qualifications for the job. Even some Republicans admit this.

The reason why Wilson wasn't required to submit a written report was because he was debriefed by two CIA agents who wrote the written report.

Perhaps Joe W can explain why he went to tell a friend at the State Dept that Bush was wrong the day after the 03 SOTU when all the information he has admitted to having is that no purchase had been made, and that and attempt had been made.

You have the timeline wrong here. Wilson initially thought that Bush's words were based on some other intelligence, so he did not say anything in the immediate aftermath of the 2003 SOTU speech. But he later found that Bush's words were based on the Niger papers, and that is when he approached his contacts in the administration. He even tried to approach Condi Rice, but was rebuffed by her.

There was no attempt made by Iraq to purchase yellowcake. In 1999 an Iraqi businessman (not an Iraqi official) approached a Nigerien official (outisde Niger) and asked if he would like to expand trade relations. When the Iraqi officials met the Niger official there was no mention of yellocake. Does this four year old incident prove that the Iraqis were seeking yellowcake? It does not.

Remember. Supposedly he was not privy to any of the other information brought out between 3/02 and the day of his meeting. And the IAEA report was still about 6 weeks in the future.

But he did know based on his 2002 trip that the reports that Bush was basing his speech on were false. I don't know what you mean by "not privy to other information", but he had contacts in the international diplomatic community from which he may have learned other things - but even if he did not he knew from his 2002 trip that Bush should not have been using the reports based on the Niger papers.

Yes, Joe. Tell us what you knew, when you knew it and who told you.
And I can think of several questions I would ask Fitzgerald.

I am sure that there will be several Republican congressmen who be happy to field your questions, so you should forward your questions to them.

It probably isn't of any interest, but if you researched, I never had much to say about what Libby said to whom, etc. I always took it for granted that this was about politics, and saw no real problem in it because I recognized that it was a target of opportunity by the Left, and that Valerie Plame's value to the CIA was very low, a point proven by Novak's ease of getting her information and further confirmed when it became plain she wasn't covert.

So obstruction of justice and perjury is no problem in your book. Thanks for letting us know. Is there any reason why we should take you seriously, given your views?

Novak said that he got his information from two senior asministration officials. Both of whom violated their official agreements to not divulge confidentiality agreements.

In otherwords, I didn't, and don't, care whether Libby lied, or not. And when I find Defense Attorneys agreeing with the Feds that the standrad isn't beyond a reasonable doubt, my giggle factor kicks in.

Both the Feds and the Defense attorneys said that the standard was "beyond reasonable doubt".

So just put me down as saying there was no underlying crime, and the investigation was pure politics. As for Libby, this says it all.

There was an underlying crime, but the coverup worked. Libby was convicted of obstructing justice.

[ Parent ]

A couple of Qs for jimakaPPJ (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:11:14 PM EST

Since you are fixated with Wilson's report - there was a report written by the CIA agents who debriefed Wilson. According to Tenet - the report was given a normal and wide distribution

How come Cheney (who knew even minor details of what other governments found out about Iraq's nuclear program) missed the report which was given a wide distribution?

Why did the administration know everything that supported their drive for war, and yet knew nothing about things that did not support their drive for war?

And finally - when Bush said that Iraq recently sought significant quantities of yellowcake, what does "recently" mean and how did he know that the quantities were "significant"?

I look forward to your answers.

[ Parent ]

Neither do you. (none / 0) (#63)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:39:17 PM EST

If you expect me to tell you why something happened, or may not have happened, almost 5 years ago you will have to just expect.

I have no idea as to if, or if not. Neither do you.

What we do know is that the CIA's report, based on Wilson's debriefing, said:

Purchase NO

Attempt YES

As to what the meaning of the word "significant" is to Bush when it comes to yellowcake, I do not know. Neither do you.

The question, of course, is of the "Do you still beat your wife?" type.

And it wasn't a "report."

As to a fixation on an editorial/article it is easier, and better, to do so at my age than have one on a beautiful blonde. If results are attained on the former they will be of interest for a long time, as compared to any results attained with the latter.

The real answer is that the NYT article is the lynch pin of this whole affair. Nothing would have happened without it. The accuracy of it then becomes of extreme interest to anyone intersted in how a political pis* fight put journalists in jail and an assistant to the VP in danger of prision.

That you see it only as a political opportunity rather than a morality play writ across a huge screen is perfectably understandable.

Have a nice day.

[ Parent ]

ppj's spin (5.00 / 1) (#64)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:45:05 PM EST

What we do know is that the CIA's report, based on Wilson's debriefing, said:
Purchase NO
Attempt YES

That is not what it said. What it said was that Malaki, thought that a delegation was seeking yellowcake.

Far from proof of any attempt.

Why do you continually spin this fact?

[ Parent ]

Squwaky avoids facts (none / 0) (#72)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:25:25 AM EST

Why do you not pay attention to what was in the Senate Intelligence Committe's report?

Remember, the debriefing was March of 2003.

The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, ( ). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective. SENTENCE DELETED The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

This clearly shows that Wilson believed that there was no sale, but that an attempt was made.

You can try, but you can not wiggle out of that fact.

[ Parent ]

: No (none / 0) (#76)
by squeaky on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 09:47:08 PM EST

This clearly shows that Wilson believed that there was no sale, but that an attempt was made.
Wilson reported that the Nigerien minister believed the delegation was trying to buy yellow cake. Wilson never said that he believed the story.

[ Parent ]

Really? (none / 0) (#71)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 10:00:26 PM EST

If you expect me to tell you why something happened, or may not have happened, almost 5 years ago you will have to just expect.
I have no idea as to if, or if not. Neither do you.

This is funny. If you have no idea of things central to your claims then you should not be debating others.

What we do know is that the CIA's report, based on Wilson's debriefing, said:
Purchase NO
Attempt YES

Saying it over and over does not make it true. This is incorrect.

As to what the meaning of the word "significant" is to Bush when it comes to yellowcake, I do not know. Neither do you.

I know what significant means. And it means that whatever the Nigerien official thought about the overtures of the Iraqi businessman, there is nothing in that dialog that supports the conclusion that significant quantities of uranium were being sought. So it follows that Wilson's trip does not substantiate what Bush said.

And it wasn't a "report."

Tenet said that there was a report which was given wide distribution within the administration. So how come Cheney (who claims to be on top of intelligence reports related to Iraq) never saw it? And not only did Cheney not see this report, he did not see the other reports from the embassy in Niger and the four star general.

And it gets even better.

Tenet interceded to keep the claim out of a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, but by Dec. 19 it reappeared in a State Department "fact sheet." After that, the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the National Intelligence Council, the senior coordinating body for the 15 agencies that then constituted the U.S. intelligence community. Did Iraq and Niger discuss a uranium sale, or not? If they had, the Pentagon would need to reconsider its ties with Niger.

The council's reply, drafted in a January 2003 memo by the national intelligence officer for Africa, was unequivocal: The Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest. Four U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge said in interviews that the memo, which has not been reported before, arrived at the White House as Bush and his highest-ranking advisers made the uranium story a centerpiece of their case for the rapidly approaching war against Iraq.

The real answer is that the NYT article is the lynch pin of this whole affair. Nothing would have happened without it. The accuracy of it then becomes of extreme interest to anyone intersted in how a political pis* fight put journalists in jail and an assistant to the VP in danger of prision.

There is nothing in that article that was inaccurate.

If Libby is facing prison, it is because of his own attempt to lie and obstruct justice.

[ Parent ]

It said what everyone believed. (none / 0) (#73)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:55:53 AM EST

Perhaps I shall have to try harder to help you understand.

I do not claim to know when every sparrow falls. That job is God's, and evidently you think, yours.

I believe God does. I don't believe you do.

Whether or not Cheney received and in what form is something I don't know. Since you like to ask questons, can you tell me why Wilson wasn't required to write a report.

Now, shall we revisit the Senate's report? What does it say the CIA believed at the time of the debrief?

It says:

Purchase: NO

Attempy to purchase: Yes.

So let us assume that Cheney was given an engraved report, or better yet, etched in stone, saying that.

Can you see that there was nothing there that changed anything at that point in time????
Late Feb or early March 2003?

Plainer: It said what everyone believed.

The IAEA Report was weeks away, and what did it do?

It said that the claim that Iraq had purchased was bogus. (Note the underlined word and try to remember the subject is "attempt."

There is nothing in that article that was inaccurate.

Oh really??

He makes a claim on 7/6/03 article that he had claimed that Bush was wrong about "attempt." Something he claims to have known on 1/29/03, yet has now admitted that he misspoke because he couldn't have seen the report because the IAEA report didn't come out until March 03.

From the article.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.

From the Senate Intelligence Committe's report:

The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) 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." C
ommittee 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.
The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents

Now, since he had seen no reports, and we have seen no articles where he claims to have been told anything different, how could his article been accurate?

Is he claiming to have just changed his mind?

Is he claiming that someone told him?

[ Parent ]

: Correction (none / 0) (#74)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 10:58:16 AM EST

In the interest of accuracy, let me note the typo of "late Feb or early March 2003" should have been
late Feb or early March 2002

[ Parent ]
: It did not say what Bush claimed (none / 0) (#77)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 08:37:23 AM EST

Whether or not Cheney received and in what form is something I don't know.
This is the million dollar question. The fact that Cheney did not read the report which the CIA gave a wide distribution within the administration means that in the best case Cheney is incompetent and in the worst case his behavior is malicious. The fact that Cheney read no reports which did not support the push for war points to the latter conclusion.

Since you like to ask questons, can you tell me why Wilson wasn't required to write a report.
It does not matter since the CIA agents debriefed Wilson and wrote a report.

Now, shall we revisit the Senate's report? What does it say the CIA believed at the time of the debrief?
It says:
Purchase: NO
Attempy to purchase: Yes.
Read the report carefully. Our intelligence at no time concluded that any purchase was attempted. You are taking what the report said about the conclusions that Mayaki reached, and somehow assuming that our intelligence reached the same conclusion. They did not (as confirmed by Tenet later).
If we are planning to wage a pre-emptive war then it better be on the solid conslusions reached by our intelligence. Not on what someone else assumes (and the assumption reached by someone may very well be wrong, given that the actual event namely attempt to purchase did not happen).

So let us assume that Cheney was given an engraved report, or better yet, etched in stone, saying that.
Can you see that there was nothing there that changed anything at that point in time????
Late Feb or early March 2003?
Plainer: It said what everyone believed.
Saying what? The CIA sent a memo right before the 2003 SOTU speech telling the Bush administration clearly that the Niger story was baseless.
The talking point that everyone believed is again false. Most nations do not have the resources to spy on Iraq, and many simply took on faith what the Bush administration alleged. But if you look at the United nations, they did not believe but were rather trying to find out

The IAEA Report was weeks away, and what did it do?
It said that the claim that Iraq had purchased was bogus. (Note the underlined word and try to remember the subject is "attempt."
Our intelligence did not conclude that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium.

There is nothing in that article that was inaccurate.
Oh really??
He makes a claim on 7/6/03 article that he had claimed that Bush was wrong about "attempt." Something he claims to have known on 1/29/03, yet has now admitted that he misspoke because he couldn't have seen the report because the IAEA report didn't come out until March 03.
From the article.
The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them.
From the Senate Intelligence Committe's report:
The former ambassador also told Committee staff that he was the source of a Washington Post article ("CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report of Uranium Bid," June 12, 2003) 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." C
ommittee 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.
The former ambassador reiterated that he had been able to collect the names of the government officials which should have been on the documents
Now, since he had seen no reports, and we have seen no articles where he claims to have been told anything different, how could his article been accurate?
Is he claiming to have just changed his mind?
Is he claiming that someone told him?
Wilson said nothing wrong in his NYT article. He was clear to say that Bush's conclusions were not borne out by the facts as he understood them. You yourself have quoted these words from Wilson and somehow make the leap that the words are wrong. They are not. Furthermore - Bush's words were based on the Niger forgeries whose unreliability they were warned on more than one occasion by the CIA.
One gotcha that Wilson misspoke later on one occasion does not mean that the substance of what he said in his NYT article was incorrect. (You yourself acknowledge that some of your dates were incorrect and should be 2002 and not 2003). That does not rise to the gotcha standard that you subject Wilson to. Wilson was correct.
Andd you refer the Butler report elsewhere. The Butler report is not our intelligence product and is full of holes.

[ Parent ]

I have a VERY (none / 0) (#56)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 11:44:04 AM EST

difficult time believing that anyone here defending Wilson and the CIA's decision to send him would do so if everything about this affair had been precisely the same until the NYT column and then that NYT column supported Bush.

I believe, people would rightfully had said Wilson was grossly underqualified and never would have risen in the career FS and it was only political connections and maneuvering for POLITICAL APPOINTMENT that he got positions of higher rank and that even those were among the least desirable one can have and still be called "Mr. Ambassaror" at georgetown cocktail parties.

It's only because in hindsight with the knowledge he opposed Bush that people choose to defend him and the CIA on this.

That said, the tactics employed by the WH to discrtedit him remain open to very legitimate attack, regardless of illegality, and the actions to conceal those tactics was at least in part criminal and quite possibly in greater part than already established.

[ Parent ]

Facts please (5.00 / 1) (#60)
by Sailor on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:15:54 PM EST

I believe, people would rightfully had said Wilson was grossly underqualified and never would have risen in the career FS and it was only political connections and maneuvering for POLITICAL APPOINTMENT that he got positions of higher rank and that even those were among the least desirable one can have and still be called "Mr. Ambassaror" at georgetown cocktail parties.

Wilson had a personal relationship with the folks in Niger he needed to interview.

And, no, I wouldn't have supported wilson if he'd lied about what he found IRT yellow cake. The whole point is that he saw his findings distorted in the STFU address, felt compelled to correct the record, the WH eventually conceded those '16 words' should have bneen included.

And for that he, his wife and the nation have paid an incredible price.

[ Parent ]

You are nuts (none / 0) (#57)
by squeaky on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:01:25 PM EST

everything about this affair had been precisely the same until the NYT column and then that NYT column supported Bush.

Were that true there would have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The Niger docs would not have been forgeries and Bush would have gone to war based on some truth rather than a pack of lies. My position would have been to find the weapons and destroy them, rather than just attack.

Why would anyone try to say Wilson was lying. Given all else was the same. Bush still would have had a nasty case of premature ejaculation, so to speak. And my position would be the same.

[ Parent ]

Your ignorance (none / 0) (#59)
by Deconstructionist on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:14:51 PM EST

is expected as it is the most consistent thing about this place.

Wilson's debriefing could not possibly have proven or disproven the existence of WMD in Iraq. Iraq could have WMD even if there had not been tentative attempts to procure yellowcake in Iraq, and it could have not had WMD even if it had been established that it completed transactions and did get it.

The point is that based exactly on what Wilson and everyone else admits he did tell the CIA he could have wriiten a column saying that he believed the mere fact that there were some overtures from Iraq meant that Iraq was a threat. Had he done so everyone here would have sought to discredit him while the Administration would have defended him.

The sides lined up as they did only because of what he later said HE THOUGHT were the significance of his meager findings.

[ Parent ]

: Ultimate reality check (none / 0) (#69)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:07:35 PM EST

Wilson's debriefing could not possibly have proven or disproven the existence of WMD in Iraq. Iraq could have WMD even if there had not been tentative attempts to procure yellowcake in Iraq, and it could have not had WMD even if it had been established that it completed transactions and did get it.
The point is that based exactly on what Wilson and everyone else admits he did tell the CIA he could have wriiten a column saying that he believed the mere fact that there were some overtures from Iraq meant that Iraq was a threat. Had he done so everyone here would have sought to discredit him while the Administration would have defended him.
The sides lined up as they did only because of what he later said HE THOUGHT were the significance of his meager findings.
The problem with your binary "Democratic partisans hail Wilson" and "Republican partisans demounce Wilson" is that there was a reality that proved to be very hard to spin - WMDs were not found in Iraq.
In addition to Wilson's report there were also the reports of the US Embassy in Niger and the report of a four star general - both of which corroborated Wilson.
And the ultimate reality check was the reality of the situation in Iraq.

[ Parent ]

Nope (none / 0) (#68)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 08:37:13 PM EST

I believe, people would rightfully had said Wilson was grossly underqualified and never would have risen in the career FS and it was only political connections and maneuvering for POLITICAL APPOINTMENT that he got positions of higher rank and that even those were among the least desirable one can have and still be called "Mr. Ambassaror" at georgetown cocktail parties.

This is demonstrably false as even some Republicans have conceded that Wilson was qualified for the mission.

Listen to Libby's grand jury testimony and you'll find that even Libby said that a) Wilson was qualified for the job, and b) Cheney said that he was qualified for the job.

[ Parent ]

Oh really?? (none / 0) (#66)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 01:07:43 PM EST

But he did know based on his 2002 trip that the reports that Bush was basing his speech on were false.

That is incorrect.

His March 2002 report to the CIA confirmed the belief Iraq:

Had not puchased.

Had attempted. This was Bush's claim, based on the Brits' report.

There is no doubt on the above.

His claim in his 7/6/03 article about the forgeries, etc., is shown to be a major "misspeak" because he admitted to doing the same thing in the Senate committee. Essential he claims to have confused the information he later learned from the IAEA report. The IAEA report was AFTER his claim that Bush was wrong in 1/29.

So his information to the WaP and in his NYT article is, shall we say, questionable.

First of all, I don't believe Libby guilty. If he is, then I hold him no more harshly than I did Clinton. Which is to say, "You shouldn't have."

To steal a phrase from William S this is:

A tale told by an idiot(s), full of sound and fury, signifying nothing

I invite all to include themselves in, or out, as desired. I am unsure of myself.

For details, read my:

Sailor, watch my lips (try 2) (1.00 / 1) (#61)
by jimakaPPJ on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 12:19:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Nope (none / 0) (#70)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Sat Mar 10, 2007 at 09:16:24 PM EST

His March 2002 report to the CIA confirmed the belief Iraq:
Had not puchased.
Had attempted. This was Bush's claim, based on the Brits' report.
There is no doubt on the above.

Wilson's report did not confirm that the Iraqis attempted to purchase.

Bush's claim was even stronger. He said that "Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa". 1999 was not recent - it was several years ago. And there is nothing in what the Iraqi businessman said to the Niger official which could lead one to say that significant quantities of uranium were being sought.

[ Parent ]

Wrong as usual. (none / 0) (#75)
by jimakaPPJ on Sun Mar 11, 2007 at 12:05:25 PM EST

Why not use the actual quote?

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb.

Because the first sentence is accurate, and the Kay report confirmed it again. Now to the 16 famous words

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

First, if all you have to argue is the definition of "significant," then you have nothing. As I said, I don't know what "significant" means to Bush when he is talking about "yellowcake" and neither do you.

We do know what the Butler Report had to say about the subject:

British intelligence on the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger was "credible". There was not conclusive evidence Iraq actually purchased the material, nor did the government make that claim

And the Brits haven't changed.

Wilson's report did not confirm that the Iraqis attempted to purchase.

Again. Wilson did not write a report, nor did he issue a report. He wrote this article that was published on 7/6/03 in the NYT.

In the article he noted that he had concluded that Iraq had not purchased.

He made no claim one way or other about the attempt to purchase.

I speculate that he did not because it would have detracted from the message that he was trying to convey. That he knew that Bush was wrong. By the continued use of the "did not purchase" theme and by not referencing what Bush had actually said, the impression is created that Bush claimed purchase and that Wilson had told the CIA differently.

But we now know that impression would have been false.

We also know that his claim to have told someone at the DOS on 1/29/02 that Bush was wrong is highly suspect and his claim was wrong, unless he had received classified information that no one has yet seen.

Do you remember the sin of omission??? Did anyone ever teach you about that?

Wilson's report did not confirm that the Iraqis attempted to purchase.

Now in the event your claim regards the Senate Intelligence Committe's report regarding what Wilson told the CIA when being debriefed, which Wilson admits happened in his article, we have repeatedly noted what the CIA said.

.... The intelligence report indicated that former Nigerien Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki was unaware of any contracts that had been signed between Niger and any rogue states for the sale of yellowcake ....
Mayaki said, however, that in June 1999,( ) 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 the UN sanctions on Iraq."
In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations."The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.
....The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue.... He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

Link

You may continue to believe that your understanding of what the Iraq meant to the Nigerian PM who was there is better than what the Nigerian understood.

I will accept the belief of an experienced politican who was there and who had no axe to grind.

And thanks for:

1999 was not recent

We're not talking about from then until now, although I suspect you have a tendancy to relate everythinf to self and now:

From June of '99 to Feb '02 is two and a half years.

Have a nice day.

[ Parent ]

Bush was wrong (none / 0) (#78)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:07:38 AM EST

First, if all you have to argue is the definition of "significant," then you have nothing. As I said, I don't know what "significant" means to Bush when he is talking about "yellowcake" and neither do you.

Wrong. I am not arguing the definition of significant. I am saying that the only thing that Bush could have relied on to make his statement was the forged Niger papers - whose unreliability his administration was warned of on mutliple occasions by the CIA.

Significant means significant. And despite whatever Mayaki may have surmised about the fishing expedition of the Iraqi businessman, there is nothing there that corroborates that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of Uranium.

Even if we assume that what Wilson said was entirely incorrect, that does not mean that Wilson's untruths proves Bush's truthfulness. We have to take Bush's statements on their own merits, and the conclusion is that Bush relied on the Niger forgeries, when our intelligence was warning his administration on multiple occasions about them.

We do know what the Butler Report had to say about the subject:

We do know that the Butler report was not written by the US, and we do know that the Butler report is full of holes.

The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue.... He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

The Nigerien PM believe that the Iraqis were interested in purchasing. That does not mean that our intelligence concluded that Iraqis sought to purchase.

[ Parent ]

the what does it mean? (none / 0) (#79)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:14:49 AM EST

-- That we think the Nigerian PM was too stupid to understand what the Iraqi envoys wanted?

-- that we think the nigerina PM was lying to wilson and others about the meeting with the Iraqis?

-- That Wilsom misunderstood the PM and he didn't really say he believed the purpose was to seek yellowcake?

-- that wilson just made that up and the PM never said he believed the Iraqis wanted yellowcake.

sometimes you have to learn to quit while you are ahead and resist the impulse to shoot yourself in the foot when no more shooting is needed.

Stick to the winnable point that Bush greatly embellished the evidence that Iraq posed an imminent threat justifying war. Don't make the incredibly silly argument that we had no reason to believe that Iraq had sought and was seeking the capability to be a threat.

[ Parent ]

not a matter of grave importance (none / 0) (#80)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:21:08 AM EST

but is there an accepted adjective other than "Nigerian" to refer to people from Niger?

Using the same term for people from Niger and Nigeria is confusing.

[ Parent ]

: OK... (none / 0) (#82)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:24:32 AM EST

According to the CIA factbook, people from Niger are "Nigerien."
Still easily confused, i suppose, but better.

[ Parent ]
: What do you call someone from Ghana? (none / 0) (#87)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 03:00:26 PM EST

A Ghanarian.
Joke, of course, as told to us by our Ghanaian TA in college...

[ Parent ]

How does one measure threat? (none / 0) (#84)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 02:20:28 PM EST

The whole area of how one measures "threat" is very nebulous, as this entire thread shows.

Here is what Wilson said:

Before I left Niger, I provided a member of the American Embassy staff with an extensive briefing....I described a conversation with one of my sources. He had mentioned to me that on the margins of a ministerial meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1999, a Nigerien businessman had asked him to meet with an Iraqi official to discuss trade. My contact said that alarm bells had immediately gone off in his mind. Well aware of United Nations sanctions on Iraq, he met with the Iraqi only briefly and avoided any substantive issues. As he told me this, he hesitated and looked up to the sky as if plumbing the depths of his memory, then offered that perhaps the Iraqi might [emphasis in original - ed.] have wanted to talk about uranium. But since there had been no discussion of uranium - my contact was idly speculating when he mentioned it - there was no story. [page 28]

The basis for a pre-emptive war should be solid intelligence, not speculation.

If that is the level of speculation that pre-emptive wars should be fought on, then countries will be forever fighting one another.

I welcome discussion on whether Iraq really was a threat to us (and its not the "incredibly silly argument" that you make it out to be). We had control over 2/3rd of Iraqi airspace. Their army was in tatters and was no match for us.

But I guess THE argument that the neocons sold a lot of people in the US was that Saddam would give his WMD to terrorists to use against us. The Bush administration hid from us - our own intelligence had concluded that the only way Saddam would give his WMD (assuming he had them) to terrorists was if we cornered him and attacked him.

There are still plenty of dictators around the world who do not like us. The only way we can safeguard ourselves is not by attacking all of them, but rather telling them in advance and in no uncertain terms what the consequences of their actions would be. Dictators are far more concerned about their self preservation than the neo-cons credit them. Deterrence worked for us during the cold war and it still works today.

[ Parent ]

I'm NOT (none / 0) (#85)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 02:33:45 PM EST

in any,way shape or manner excusing the administrations justification for the war on this or the cumulative total of all intelligence.

I'm saying I think it is more accurate to view the Wilson mission as a part of the fundamental intelligence failure than to view his selection or his information as good intelligence work ignored. His findings strike me as essentially a worthless joke, and I think that reflects poorly on him, poorly on the CIA for selecting him, poorly on everyone for not digging further, and, certainly, especially poorly on the Administration for exploiting such crappy work in furtherance of its ends.

I see no reason to pin a medal on Wilson or the CIA in order to attack the Administration's jutification. In fact, I think portaying the mission as a symptom of the systemic failures--forwhich the Administration is responsibl--- is even a better political tactic in addition to just being a lot more accurate.

[ Parent ]

: largely agree (none / 0) (#86)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 02:52:25 PM EST

Lets end this on a note of agreement.

[ Parent ]

even SSCI included something wrong (none / 0) (#81)
by MiddleOfTheRoad on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:24:08 AM EST

SSCI says

The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, ( ). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective. SENTENCE DELETED The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

Even though Amb. Wilson indicated that the meeting in question occurred in Algiers and even though the CIA DO reports officer's own report said nothing about Iraqi officials making a trip to Niger in mid-1999, the reports officer incorrectly asserted to the SSCI that Wilson somehow claimed that the Iraqi delegation visited Niger (as opposed to Algiers). WINPAC and DIA analysts, likewise, made wrong assertions to the SSCI, despite the contents of the CIA DO report.Link

[ Parent ]

: which brings us back (none / 0) (#83)
by Deconstructionist on Mon Mar 12, 2007 at 09:30:35 AM EST

to my earlier point that EVERYTHING about this whole episode was screwed up badly and hearings should investigate the reasons for and results of the deficincies from top to bottom.

[ Parent ]

Rep. Waxman to Hold PlameGate Hearing | 87 comments (87 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

Menu

Premium Ads

Blog Ads

Search

Login

Creator and Principal Author

Contributors

TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections

Site Credits

Legal

Stats