The Senate Intelligence Committee report on Iraq WMD claims indicated that the CIA made many mistakes in their assessments of Iraqi capabilities, but interestingly enough it also confirms the Bush Administration claim that Saddam Hussein was seeking uranium from Africa.
So, now that Bush’s statement has been confirmed through at least two inquiries, I’d like to see apologies from all those who accused Bush of lying about this issue…
…Not that I expect to see many…
I’d like to see apologies from all those who accused Bush of lying about this issue…
What, Bush should apologize to himself? It was, after all, the White House who repuidated those claims.
Maybe if the administration’s response to criticisms of the uranium claims had been to actually attempt to substantitate the claims, and not simply to try to take it out on Valerie Plame (how’s that “independant investigation” going, btw?), it wouldn’t have been a big deal in the first place.
Anyway isn’t the humanitarian plight of the Iraqis enough justification for you?
So, now that Bush’s statement has been confirmed through at least two inquiries
Two inquiries apparently both based on the original forged documents.
Yeah, I’m not really impressed. Particularly by the media in this case.
So what is it we’re actually apologizing for?
The basis for Bush’s decisionj to include the Nigerian comment in his state of the union address was based on forged documents. There’s no debate there. However, there was another avenue where it was possible that Iraq was trying to get fissionable materials. Did Bush know this? No one knew this, the only info was based on this forged document. Just because it was confirmed elsewhere doesn’t make the original issue go away, at the time, Bush was basing his decision on bad intelligence.
Lets move on though. Remember the major reason that Bush attacked Iraq. I’m not talking about the current spin (“We had to remove a dangerous dictator, because stability is needed!”) – If that’s the case, there’s a dozen others that really need to be taken out, and had far more immediate impact on their citizens than Saddam did.
No, I’m talking 2002-2003 here, where Bush declared, with his Ed MacMahon-like Blair that Saddam was an “immediate threat” to the US. He possessed WMDs, and was linked to Al Quaeda.
Even now, his ‘war on terrorism’ is only attacking in the terrorist environs he helped create.
I quote from this report:
Following release of the 511-page review Friday, the panel’s top Democrat, West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, said three-quarters of senators would not have voted to authorize the invasion if they had known how weak the intelligence was.
“This report cries out for reform,” said committee chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan.
In the unanimously approved report, senators concluded that the CIA (news – web sites) kept key information from its own and other agencies’ analysts; engaged in “group think” by failing to challenge the assumption that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; and allowed President Bush (news – web sites) and Secretary of State Colin Powell (news – web sites) to make false statements.
urther in this article:
The committee concluded that key assertions used to justify the Iraq war — that Saddam Hussein (news – web sites) had chemical and biological weapons and was working to build nuclear weapons — were either wrong or overblown.
note, btw, that this commissions investigation is not complete. The second phase of the report is not complete:
Democrats also said the investigation should have examined whether the White House had twisted the intelligence it received — a second phase of the probe that probably won’t be finished until after the elections.
Did Bush lie about the Nigerian connection for fissionable materials going to Iraq? Maybe yes, maybe no. Was it important? Not particularly. Did Bush seriously question the intelligence coming to him regarding WMDs and the threat to the US before he ordered the death of tens of thousands of Iraqi soldiers and over a thousand US servicemen, and the subsequent bankrupting of the US economy in a conflict we cannot afford? No, he took the support he had garnered after 9/11, and involved the US in a war under false pretenses.
That, my friends, is the issue.
There was a lot of butchering in the formatting of the commentary there, apologies. Only so much you can do in a textarea without a [preview] function 🙁
Just because it was confirmed elsewhere doesn’t make the original issue go away, at the time, Bush was basing his decision on bad intelligence.
I’m still not convinced that anything has been “confirmed elsewhere.” Corraboration of the administrations position by Britain and France is pretty worthless if their corraboration is based on having seen the same forged documents.
Again, another attempt to distort the truth.
The forged documents were not part of the British intelligence about Iraq and uranium. The British hadn’t even seen those documents. The forged documents were not the only piece of evidence. The connections are numerous and even Ambassador Wilson notes in his own book that Mohammad Saeed al-Sahhaf was in Niger on a trade mission.
This constant attempt to confuse the issue by arguing that the only piece of evidence was those forged documents is another example of anti-Bush bullshit. Both the US Senate and the British government have said otherwise, but ideologues like Chet apparently don’t want to listen.
From the article:
(Emphasis mine)
Is it really that fucking hard to actually read something before blathering inane and blatantly wrong accusations?
Jay, according to you, Irak was definitely trying to acquire uranium…for what? Did your troops find ANY power plant to enrich it? Any reactor to produce plutonium? Any advanced facility for nuclear purpose? None! What would Saddam have made with this uranium? I don’t think someone buys a product he cannot process. (and don’t come with your dirty bomb…he had missiles of 150 miles max…)
And moreover, there’s still one remaining question: where did the forged documents came from in the first place? Who forged these documents? Who tried to take the whole world to war with this evidence. Until the fraudsters will not be found, there’s not point in analysing the decision taken upon it…Who made the forgery? (my guess is CIA, just as for anthrax letters!)
Who made the forgery? (my guess is CIA, just as for anthrax letters!)
Whoah, Vincent, ease up on the black helicopters syndrome, guy. 🙂
vincent: The Iraqis had the ability to reconstruct a nuclear program once sanctions were lifted – which is exactly what France and Russia were trying to do. He had centrifuge parts buried as well as plans for creating an enrichment facility.
Second, you don’t launch a dirty bomb with a missile, you smuggle it in somewhere.
Finally, you may want to adjust your tinfoil hat. An Italian journalist provided those documents, not the CIA.
All of that information came to Washington long before an Italian journalist gave U.S. officials copies of documents purporting to show an agreement from Niger to sell uranium to Baghdad. Those documents have been determined to be forgeries.
Right, but since the British information wasn’t and still isn’t credible, how does that support anything?
If three people tell you something, but two of them are telling it to you because someone lied to them, and the third is telling you something he’s just making up, that doesn’t prove anything.
Three liars don’t substantiate a lie, Jay. The British information is so discredited that a man killed himself. The French and US reports were based on Italian forgeries. It just doesn’t add up, despite your attempts to distort.
Except if you’d bothered to pay attention, you would have found that the British government already investigated their sources and confirmed that they were accurate and credible.
The Hutton Inquest determined that the BBC was lying and hounded Dr. Kelley to his death.
The latest inquest determined that the UK’s intelligence on African uranium and Iraq was accurate and substantial and had absolutely nothing to do with the forged documents.
So instead of trying to deal with reality, the ideologues have to lie about it.
Which shows why they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near power.
The latest inquest determined that the UK’s intelligence on African uranium and Iraq was accurate and substantial and had absolutely nothing to do with the forged documents.
Are you talking about the Butler inquiry? Because your interpretation of it seems totally the opposite of everything I’m reading about it.
For instance the Guardian is reporting that the Butler inquiry pretty much debunks the Niger uranium claim. The only one who seems to think that the Butler inquiry actually supports the uranium claim is you – and it certainly isn’t Butler:
“In the letter, sent a fortnight ago, Butler refers to ElBaradei’s address to the UN Security Council on 7 March, 2003. ElBaradei used the occasion to dismiss claims by the British and US governments, concluding: ‘There is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990.'”
So, who exactly isn’t paying attention?
Nice try, but notice the date. The Financial Times article I linked to earlier (which is now subscriber-only unfortunately) indicated that the left-wing Guardian got it wrong again and that the evidence for this connection was substantial and accurate.
In fact, here’s the relevant text:
But hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good argument…
But hey, don’t let the facts get in the way of a good argument…
Ok, so on one hand you’ve got one article (that nobody can read, now) that cites some unknown folks that says the Butler report substantiates the claims.
On the other hand, I’ve got the majority of the British and world press (the Guardian, the Scotsman, Christian Science Monitor, etc) reporting that the Butler report is expected to present a very damning case in regards to the intelligence used to support the Iraq War. For instance, from the Scotsman:
It is already widely expected that the Butler report will be critical of the intelligence used by Mr Blair as a basis for his case for the war to remove Saddam Hussein.
Or from RTE News:
The report by former senior civil servant Lord Butler is expected to criticise MI6 and its chief, John Scarlett, although Downing Street has refused to comment.
And that’s from one search on Google News. Myself, I’m content to wait until the report is actually released to the public (something that you failed to mention hadn’t actually happen when you cited it as a source) to find out what it says. Of course if the report’s position is at all what the majority of the British press says it is there’s absolutely no chance we’ll hear about it on jayreding.com.