I knew I should have turned left at...

[Yonivore]

...Albuquerque!

Joe and Valerie's buddies are going to be really upset with them! This isn't having the effect they hoped for. Typical (liberal) CIA operation.


Two Questions for George Tenet (http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4964)


Finally, the spotlight has started to swing away from Lewis Libby and his allegedly perjurous grand-jury testimony toward where that spotlight should have focused all along: on the CIA’s incompetent, weird – and possibly treasonous—response to Vice President Cheney’s inquiry about Iraq’s interest in purchasing yellowcake from Niger.

Perhaps an outline of how we did things at the CIA during the Reagan Administration will help to illustrate just how appalling the agency’s handling of Mr. Cheney’s query really was:

One of the first lessons you learn in the intelligence business, is that top-level officials rarely bother to ask for intelligence. They take whatever you provide – gratefully, when the intelligence is directly useful to them; sullenly, when they don’t like what you tell them – but otherwise pay no attention to you. Your job as a senior intelligence official is to develop whatever intelligence you believe the policymakers need, and then to “market” that intelligence to the policymakers whether they want it or not. (Meanwhile, you will be driven nuts by the incessant demands for intelligence from low-level officials at the Departments of State and Defense, and even at the White House. Much of what they ask for is obviously important, so you do your best to get it. But some requests are either marginal to our country’s security, or were triggered by some spy movie they watched over the weekend—in which case you do nothing, and usually they don’t ask a second time.)

Straight to the DCI

It’s quite rare for a Cabinet member to actually ask for intelligence – and even more rare for the Vice President or the President to ask – so when they do it’s a very big deal. President Reagan’s great Director of Central Intelligence, William J. Casey, made clear to all of us that when a top-level official personally asked the CIA to check into something, he was to be notified immediately. No matter what else was going on that day that demanded Casey’s total attention – a revolution in Asia, a covert action in Eastern Europe, another of Bob Woodward’s fantasies in The Washington Post—a direct query from any of the four or five top Administration officials took precedence over everything else. After all, they were our primary customers.

Casey would call a meeting of relevant intelligence officials to discuss the request, to understand what lay behind the request, and then to organize the job of developing a response. Sometimes, when the query was a simple one – “Just how many SS-20 missiles have the Russians got in Eastern Europe right now?” – we would have the answer in an hour. Other times – “That report you sent over last evening about the Soviet trade mission to Egypt is worrisome, and if you can find out whether any secret agreements were signed in Cairo I’d be grateful.” – we needed longer to respond.

Sometimes we could rely wholly on our own people to do whatever research, or snooping, had to be done. Other times, we needed help from people who didn’t work for the CIA – or even for the US government – but who for whatever reason had the access necessary to help get the information we sought. This would include former government officials, academic experts, business executives, scientists and people from the world of politics both here in the US and overseas. Bill Casey was a great CIA director for many reasons, not the least of which was his Rolodex. It was the size of a Ferris wheel. Casey seemed to know everyone on earth who had ever accomplished anything, and he had a genius for flipping through his Rolodex and plucking out the one individual in the entire world capable of helping us find out whatever we needed to know – and then talking that man or woman into lending a hand.

It was always done quietly – if a meeting was necessary, we held it away from the office—and with no paper trail whatever. And we did it all the time. There are literally scores of individuals in Washington, and elsewhere, who during those years gave their time and energy – sometimes at personal risk – to help provide information vital to our country’s security. Of course you don’t know who they are because they never, ever talked about what they did, not even to their friends and colleagues—never gave a speech about it, and never published op-ed essays about it even if they thought the resulting Reagan policies were wrong-headed. They understood that in taking on an assignment for the CIA – however brief, however informal – they were expected to keep their mouths shut.

In Person or “Eyes Only”

When we had our answer to the top official’s query – whether it took us an hour or a month – that answer went to Casey himself, who would review it personally to be sure it was an adequate response. Because the President, the Vice President, and the Secretaries of State and Defense were the CIA’s primary customers, Casey considered it his personal responsibility to oversee the agency’s responses to their queries. Usually, Casey himself would deliver the response in person. Other times it would be delivered in the form of a top-secret, “Eyes-Only” memo from him to the official.

All this raises two important questions for George Tenet, who was Director of Central Intelligence during all the time that “Plamegate” was going on:

• Why did the CIA, under your direction, treat the Vice President’s query about Iraqi efforts to purchase yellowcake in Niger so casually?

• When Joe Wilson started blabbing in public about his CIA mission to Niger – and lying about what he reported to the CIA upon his return – why didn’t you say something rather than allow the President’s credibility to be shredded?

These days George Tenet – to whom President Bush inexplicably awarded the Medal of Freedom, our country’s highest civilian honor—is raking in a fortune on the lecture circuit. Perhaps someone in his next audience will take the opportunity to ask these questions and insist on answers – which is more than any of the hot-shot reporters in Washington seems interested in doing.

[Nbadan]

Why did the CIA, under your direction, treat the Vice President’s query about Iraqi efforts to purchase yellowcake in Niger so casually?

Maybe it's because the documents these accusations were made under had already been established as forgeries by the Italians.

[Yonivore]

C'mon! Chumpy? I don't read Nbadan's nonsense so how 'bout another Bush-basher respond.

[ChumpDumper]

1) Define "casually"

2) What specifically did he blab and lie about that required Tenent to assassinate him (probably literally, since you take this so seriously)?

[Yonivore]

1) Define "casually"

2) What specifically did he blab and lie about that required Tenent to assassinate him (probably literally, since you take this so seriously)?
It's all in the article Chump.

[ChumpDumper]

The difference in selection process isn't addressed at all. Who exactly would've been more qualified to find out what was going on anyway? Sounds like the Rolodex wasn't needed.

The op-ed piece? The guy felt like speaking up. Sue him -- or compromise the CIA -- whatever floats your boat.

Why did Rove and Libby treat a covert agent's identity so casually?

Why did the administration work so hard to discredit a man with whom they ultimately agreed (the yella cake stories shouldn't have been included in the State of the Union address)?

[Vashner]

I don't think Wilson actually ever gave the CIA any paperwork.. the whole thing stinks on both sides...

I think there is an internal but classified investigation going on right now over Wilson's role. We may never know the truth..

[Yonivore]

The difference in selection process isn't addressed at all.
That's what the whole article was about. The difference in how these types of assignments were handled in the Casey CIA administration and how casually they apparently were handled in the Tenet CIA administration. Easily 2/3 of the article was specific to the differences in how this was done.


Who exactly would've been more qualified to find out what was going on anyway?
Well, since she was a "secret" agent versed in WMD's maybe Valerie Plame should have taken the assignment herself. (Of course, I say this in jest, because it was no secret that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA and that she was Joseph Wilson's wife). Indeed, it would seem that Wilson's history in Rome (where the counterfeit memos were produced) and his friendships in Niger (where he was ostensibly sent to investigate) would necessarily compromise any objective findings.


Sounds like the Rolodex wasn't needed.
Not if you're executing a hit on the administration's rationale for going to war in Iraq. Wilson was the perfect pick.


The op-ed piece? The guy felt like speaking up. Sue him -- or compromise the CIA -- whatever floats your boat.
Another thing unheard of in the CIA, a tapped resource that lies and then spreads those lies in an Op-Ed piece.

In fact, I found a quote from Tenet where he refutes Wilson. So, in part, question number two is answered.

Five days after Wilson's NYT op-ed, Tenet put out a statement describing how the person the CIA sent to check out the Niger story found that the Iraqis had indeed tried to open up trade talks, which were interpretted by government officials in Niger as an attempt to purchase uranium ore. Tenet left the name of the person the CIA sent to Niger out of his statement, possibly to avoid running afoul of secrecy laws, but since Wilson had already outed himself as the person the CIA sent to Niger, it was perfectly clear who Tenet was talking about.

Here's your link to Tenet's statement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3060633.stm)


Why did Rove and Libby treat a covert agent's identity so casually?

Well, she wasn't covert and hadn't been overseas in more than 6 years (already a disqualifier of the "Secret Identities Act" or whatever it's called) and it explained to the media that it wasn't the Vice President but the ambassador's wife (and, indeed, was in a position to) that sent him to Niger.


Why did the administration work so hard to discredit a man with whom they ultimately agreed (the yella cake stories shouldn't have been included in the State of the Union address)?
I know the repitition of a lie is the best way to insure it is finally taken as truth but, in fact, Joe Wilson discredited himself. The CIA said the statement shouldn't have been included but, if you recall, the statement was based on British intelligence -- which, by the way stands by the statement -- and only reported that Iraq had "SOUGHT" yellowcake uranium which, in fact, Wilson's report bolstered and which, in fact, the Niger officials reported to Wilson.

There was an investigation in Britain over this matter and the British intelligence agencies were exonerated as well.

The President, the Nigerians/Nigerites (?), the British, the Senate Committee that concluded Wilson was a lying fuck, and yes -- even the CIA -- agree to the point that Iraq "SOUGHT" yellowcake uranium in Africa. In fact, the CIA believed Wilson's investigation bolstered this belief..because of what Niger officials reported to him.


He [Joseph Wilson] reported back to us that one of the former Nigerian officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office.

The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger.

The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales.

Wilson's lies about having debunked the President's sixteen words were also painstakingly documented in the Senate Intelligence Committee report on pre-war intelligence assessments. How did the room-full of reporters react to being the vehicle for the repetition of known lies? They laughed and applauded.

Read it here (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/senateiraqreport.pdf)...

I know, this may be a little nuanced for you...why don't you ask John Kerry to explain.

[ChumpDumper]

That's what the whole article was about. The difference in how these types of assignments were handled in the Casey CIA administration and how casually they apparently were handled in the Tenet CIA administration. Easily 2/3 of the article was specific to the differences in how this was done.No, 2/3 of the article is about how the Casey CIA did it, nothing else.
Well, since she was a "secret" agent versed in WMD's maybe Valerie Plame should have taken the assignment herself. (Of course, I say this in jest, because it was no secret that Valerie Plame worked for the CIA and that she was Joseph Wilson's wife). Indeed, it would seem that Wilson's history in Rome (where the counterfeit memos were produced) and his friendships in Niger (where he was ostensibly sent to investigate) would necessarily compromise any objective findings.LOL -- his having helpful contacts in Niger could only disqualify him, right?
Five days after Wilson's NYT op-ed, Tenet put out a statement describing how the person the CIA sent to check out the Niger story found that the Iraqis had indeed tried to open up trade talks, which were interpretted by government officials in Niger as an attempt to purchase uranium ore.Except for the fact yella cake was never mentioned and the subject was changed before the interpretation could be verified -- those Iraqis sure didn't try hard if they actually wanted yella cake, did they?
Well, she wasn't covert and hadn't been overseas in more than 6 years (already a disqualifier of the "Secret Identities Act" or whatever it's called)It's my understanding she had been undercover in that time -- the Act requires that the leaker has to know the agent was covert and the US was working to keep the agent's identity secret. It's difficult to meet all the requirements to get an indictment, which I imagine is why the investigation into Rove's actions is ongoing.
and it explained to the media that it wasn't the Vice President but the ambassador's wife (and, indeed, was in a position to) that sent him to Niger.His identity was not a secret to anyone -- if anyone from the CIA or State Department had a problem with his going, they certainly could've voiced their opinion about his going then.
The CIA said the statement shouldn't have been included but, if you recall, the statement was based on British intelligence -- which, by the way stands by the statement -- and only reported that Iraq had "SOUGHT" yellowcake uranium which, in fact, Wilson's report bolstered and which, in fact, the Niger officials reported to Wilson.Hey, Rice and Powell and Fleischer backtracked on the statement, not me. Take it up with them.
I know, this may be a little nuanced for you.Gee, a 521 page link. That's rich. Maybe you could give me the pertinent PDF page.

[Yonivore]

No, 2/3 of the article is about how the Casey CIA did it, nothing else.
As contrasted with the way Tenet did it. Read the Senate Intelligence Report. Nobody knows how the Vice Presiden't question was answered. You know, the question that supposed led to Wilson's mission?

LOL -- his having helpful contacts in Niger could only disqualify him, right?
Yeah, particularly since he did little more than have tea and talk over old times...satisfying himself by asking his friends pointed questions and accepting their answers at face value. The CIA deemed his trip of no use and said it added little, if anything, to their knowledge base.

Except for the fact yella cake was never mentioned and the subject was changed before the interpretation could be verified -- those Iraqis sure didn't try hard if they actually wanted yella cake, did they?
Actually, yellowcake was specifically mentioned -- since it's the only type of uranium mined in Niger. Plus, Wilson only determined that the government didn't sell uranium to Iraq. The Senate Intelligence report (highly redacted) states reports a concession, by those same officials, that rogue elements in the Niger government could have tried to execute a contract but, that that was unlikely too.

Fact remains, the Niger government confirmed British intelligence that Iraq had, indeed, sought to purchase uranium in Africa. Which is the statement President Bush made in his SOTUA.


It's my understanding she had been undercover in that time...
From where does your understanding come?


... -- the Act requires that the leaker has to know the agent was covert and the US was working to keep the agent's identity secret. It's difficult to meet all the requirements to get an indictment, which I imagine is why the investigation into Rove's actions is ongoing.
Damn difficult. Which is why no one will be indicted for this crime. There was no crime. She had been stateside for more than five years, the CIA wasn't taking affirmative actions to conceal her identity (telling Robert Novak "we'd prefer you not mention her name" isn't exactly affirmative or forceful), and there's no way to know if Rove knew she had ever been a secret agent. Her current role as a WMD expert with the CIA was common knowledge -- if she had a dual role, there's no way of knowing that Rove was advised that. It was in her capacity of WMD expert that Wilson got his assignment and it was her capacity of WMD expert that the administration pointed to as why Wilson was sent to Niger.


His identity was not a secret to anyone -- if anyone from the CIA or State Department had a problem with his going, they certainly could've voiced their opinion about his going then.
But, I presume his mission was. I'm doubtful anyone above Plame even know who they were sending to Niger to answer the Vice President's question. Apparently, things were pretty loosy-goosy in the Tenet CIA.


Hey, Rice and Powell and Fleischer backtracked on the statement, not me. Take it up with them.
Sorry, don't know them personally. But, I do know Wilson's report the Senate Intelligence Report and British Intelligence don't refute the statement that British Intelligence learned that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa.

In fact, all three bolster that claim.


Gee, a 521 page link. That's rich. Maybe you could give me the pertinent PDF page.

Fuck man, learn to read. Start on page 36 and read the entire section that deals with Wilson's mission. Apparently, the CIA didn't find much value in his report.

[Yonivore]

Oh, and pay close attention to the first complete paragraph on page 45. That's where Wilson is exposed as a fucking liar.

[Yonivore]

Then read the first complete paragraph on page 46. That's where the CIA says Wilson's information wasn't anything new nor did it add anything to what they already knew. That's also where the Presiden't SOTUA statement is supported.

[ChumpDumper]

Read the Senate Intelligence Report. Nobody knows how the Vice Presiden't question was answered.Why didn't they ask him?
Yeah, particularly since he did little more than have tea and talk over old times...satisfying himself by asking his friends pointed questions and accepting their answers at face value. The CIA deemed his trip of no use and said it added little, if anything, to their knowledge base.Right, because the Ambassador and her staff and the State Department had come to the same conclusion he did before. I admit Cheney's request was superfluous.
Actually, yellowcake was specifically mentionedNo, it wasn't -- perhaps you should read this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/senateiraqreport.pdf) yourself, though I'm beginning to doubt your very ability to do so.
There was no crime.Take it up with Fitzpatrick.
But, I presume his mission was [secret].You presume wrong. Again.

[Yonivore]

The last paragraph on 43 and the first on 44 specifically mention yellowcake uranium. And, if I can find a searchable version, I'll find where it says yellowcake is the ONLY FUCKING URANIUM MINED IN NIGER. Jeeze...you're obstinent.

[Yonivore]

Here I found it...and it differs somewhat from what I said in that is doesn't say that Niger only mines yellowcake but that, "...in view of the origin, the uranium is probably in the form of yellowcake..." (page 37.)

Yellowcake is pretty much all they talk about and, when they use the generic "uranium" it is in the context of a passage that already established they were talking about yellowcake uranium.

[ChumpDumper]

Then read the first complete paragraph on page 46. That's where the CIA says Wilson's information wasn't anything new nor did it add anything to what they already knew.Way ahead of you. And I completely agree -- his visit was superfluous and did nothing to add to any of the conclusions already reached by State.

I'd like to know the actual conclusions of the committe, but over 80% of them are blacked out.

[Yonivore]

Way ahead of you. And I completely agree -- his visit was superfluous and did nothing to add to any of the conclusions already reached by State.
So, maybe he wasn't the right person to send on the mission. Maybe they should have sent a real spy that would investigate the claims intead of rub elbows with Niger's elite and ask powder puff questions.


I'd like to know the actual conclusions of the committe, but over 80% of them are blacked out.
But, the parts that state Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger are not redacted. Are they?

They also concluded the Bush Administration didn't manipulate the intelligence in order to form a pretext for war.

[ChumpDumper]

The last paragraph on 43 and the first on 44 specifically mention yellowcake uranium.Look you idiot: the paper is full of the words yellowcake, but they weren't spoken by the Iraqis! The conversation never even got that far.

[ChumpDumper]

So, maybe he wasn't the right person to send on the mission. Maybe they should have sent a real spy that would investigate the claims intead of rub elbows with Niger's elite and ask powder puff questions.Maybe State had done a good enough job that nothing else was needed and any further investigation would have been just as redundant.
But, the parts that state Iraq attempted to purchase yellowcake uranium from Niger are not redacted. Are they?The memo of sale for 500 tons was roundly discounted by state itself -- all that's left is the guess of the PM.
They also concluded the Bush Administration didn't manipulate the intelligence in order to form a pretext for war.If they did, it's blacked out.

[Yonivore]

Look you idiot: the paper is full of the words yellowcake, but they weren't spoken by the Iraqis!
Well duh! Maybe if Niger only deals in yellowcake uranium, the "yellowcake" is inferred? The Niger guys said they took Iraq's overtures to be an attempt to secure uranium from them. All other references in the document refer to yellowcake uranium. Do the friggin' math.


The conversation never even got that far.
At least not with the guys Wilson talked to. They did allow there may be rogues within the Niger government that DID have further discussions with the Iraqis but that those too were unlikely to succeed.

Besides, why are we arguing over this distinction. Yellowcake wasn't mentioned in the President's SOTUA either. You started out saying the President's statement was a lie and now, we've concluded that Wilson, the CIA, the guys from Niger (what are they called? It can't be Nigerians), the British Intelligence community, and the Senate Intelligence Committee all agree -- "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

[scott]

So, maybe he wasn't the right person to send on the mission. Maybe they should have sent a real spy that would investigate the claims intead of rub elbows with Niger's elite and ask powder puff questions.

Obviously, they should have sent a real spy to support the State of the Union Address claim.

[Yonivore]

Maybe State had done a good enough job that nothing else was needed and any further investigation would have been just as redundant.
So, Wilson investiged the potential "rogues" that may have entered into an agreement?


The memo of sale for 500 tons was roundly discounted by state itself -- all that's left is the guess of the PM.
Do you really not know the difference between "sought" and "purchased?" Who ever claimed the Iraqis were actually successful in obtaining the uranium? The fact that he was seeking it was enough to condemn him under the UNSC resolutions prohibiting such action.


If they did, it's blacked out.
page 276. Jeeze...that's the last time I'm finding anything for you.

[Yonivore]

Obviously, they should have sent a real spy to support the State of the Union Address claim.
British Intelligence does support it. So, does the CIA insofar as they don't refute it in the Senate Intelligence Committee Report and also, insofar as they say Wilson's report is consistent with their information -- in which was contained the information that Niger believed Iraq was making overtures to obtain uranium from them.

I don't know scott, in my mind, that's pretty good confirmation of the statement that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

But, I don't disagree, they should have sent a real spy. Which leads to the question of CIA motive in employing Wilson for this task.

[Yonivore]

You know this is a good example of how the media manipulates information.

The government (based on British Intelligence) claims Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger.

A former ambassador asks Niger and they tell him Iraq made overtures they interpreted as an attempt to buy uranium from them.

memos, documenting a actual sale of uranium by Niger to Iraq -- are deemed forgeries. And, therefore, this negates the earlier claims that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger.

Nowhere is it claimed that the President's statement was based on these memos...in fact, if they were, wouldn't he have said that Iraq actuall bought uranium from Niger?

[ChumpDumper]

Well duh! Maybe if Niger only deals in yellowcake uranium, the "yellowcake" is inferred?The comfort at which you condemn tens of thousands to death on the word "maybe" continues to stagger the imagination. You sure went to the mat for Schiavo's maybe, and you were wrong there too. Interesting.
Besides, why are we arguing over this distinction. Yellowcake wasn't mentioned in the President's SOTUA either. You started out saying the President's statement was a lieI said it was reckless.
page 276. Jeeze...that's the last time I'm finding anything for you.That's the section that uncovers all the blackouts? You really have trouble with the simplest of sentences.

[JohnnyMarzetti]

At least Yoni still has hopes for his beloved Dumbya.

[Yonivore]

The comfort at which you condemn tens of thousands to death on the word "maybe" continues to stagger the imagination.
Oh c'mon, you and your ten-fucking-thousand. Was, or was it not, concluded Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger? Quit trying to weasel away.


I said it was reckless.
How so? And, was it true?


That's the section that uncovers all the blackouts? You really have trouble with the simplest of sentences.


They also concluded the Bush Administration didn't manipulate the intelligence in order to form a pretext for war.


If they did, it's blacked out.


page 276. Jeeze...that's the last time I'm finding anything for you.


(U) The DDI told Committee staff that the Vice President had visited CIA about five to eight times total between September 2001 and February 2003 and that she had participated in most, if not all, of the sessions. She said usually a group of analysts and their collection counterparts would brief the Vice President on key findings on a particular issue. She said “he was usually in receive mode during the presentation and then asked questions afterwards.” She said “they were really good exchanges. I think the analysts felt that he was listening. Like I said, he was in a receive mode during their presentations. It wasn’t interrupting from the start with let me give a different point of view or don’t you think this or anything along those lines.”

(U) One of the CIA delivery analysts told Committee staff that he thought the purpose of the visits was “factfinding.” He said, They wanted to know what our analysis was. They listened and that was it. There was no pressure back on us to change it or to manipulate it in any way. They just wanted to know what our analysis was, and we told them and that was it.

(U) A CIA nuclear analyst said he had been in a meeting with the Vice President about Iraq-Libya issues and said that the Vice President asks a lot of questions, but said he never had the feeling that the Vice President was trying to lead any of the analysts down a certain path. The analyst said he believed the Vice President was interested in learning what the analysts knew and what they did not know.

And on it goes for several pages of the same...there's a whole section on the question of allegations of policymakers trying to shape or influence the intelligence.

Conclusion, there were no attempts to drive the intelligence in a particular direction by this administration.

[ChumpDumper]

Oh c'mon, you and your ten-fucking-thousand. Was, or was it not, concluded Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger? Quit trying to weasel away.No weaseling. A former PM thought maybe. Let the killing begin. It's not like Iraq didn't already have uranium, which makes this misadventure in bad intel all the more stupid.
Blah, blah, blahAre you highlighting the blacked out parts? Do you still not understand the words?

[Yonivore]

No weaseling. A former PM thought maybe. Let the killing begin. It's not like Iraq didn't already have uranium, which makes this misadventure in bad intel all the more stupid.
So, where is the uranium they already had? And, wouldn't that be a violation of UNSC resolutions -- wouldn't also contradict your whole "Bush Lied and People Died" credo?


Are you highlighting the blacked out parts? Do you still not understand the words?

There are no redactions in the section on influence that I saw. Conclusion 83 and 84 are clear in the unredacted portions. What could follow to contradict the first paragraph?

[ChumpDumper]

So, where is the uranium they already had?Most of it is here, but who knows how much was made off with after the invasion?
And, wouldn't that be a violation of UNSC resolutionsNope, all the high-yiled stuff was already taken away and the equipment for processing all the stuff was gone too. All the remaining stuff was under seal and inspected by the IAEA until 2002.

[Yonivore]

Most of it is here, but who knows how much was made off with after the invasion?
So, where'd he get it?

And, are you really concluding -- in direct contradiction to the CIA, this administration, British Intelligence, and Joseph Wilson -- that Iraq didn't seek to buy uranium from Niger?

I gotta have your direct answer to that question.

[ChumpDumper]

wouldn't also contradict your whole "Bush Lied and People Died" credo?Not my credo. Lots of folks did die though.
And, are you really concluding -- in direct contradiction to the CIA, this administration, British Intelligence, and Joseph Wilson -- that Iraq didn't seek to buy uranium from Niger?I wholeheartedly agree that a PM thought that an Iraqi businessman might have been starting a conversation about possibly buying yella cake.

[Yonivore]

Not my credo. Lots of folks did die though.I wholeheartedly agree that a PM thought that an Iraqi businessman might have been starting a conversation about possibly buying yella cake.
Okay, what do you suppose the Iraqis wanted to talk about, with Niger? Presuming, of course, the PM is wrong -- and that he doesn't know the first thing about Niger's economy and what Iraq would be wanting to establish a business relationship over.

You just can't admit it. Can you...

That's okay though.

[ChumpDumper]

You just can't admit it.I already did. Facts are facts. Maybes are maybes. Deaths are deaths.

[Yonivore]

I already did. Facts are facts. Maybes are maybes. Deaths are deaths.
It all goes back to this post.


Why did the administration work so hard to discredit a man with whom they ultimately agreed
A) I don't believe the administration was working to descredit him as much as it was trying to show they didn't send this lying Bozo to Niger. Wilson did a perfectly fine job of discrediting himself.

B) I believe there was justification for invading Iraq based on past behavior, contemporaneous reports such as the attempt to buy banned weapons components from Niger (as has been the topic of this thread), the allied-influenced deterioration of sanctions, Iraq's ties to terrorism, and a reasonable presumption he would be working against the U.S. if sanctions were ever lifted -- all at a time when we were at war with an asymetrical enemy.

Apparently, you don't.

I haven't convinced you, nor you me. Oh well.