Double-standard?

Originally posted by Rokenn: Ya know Magik if you had actually read the piece you would have seen that it was NOT a piece of Times reporting, but an op-ed piece written by the man that actually conducted the investigation about the alleged uranium sale. Also Ari Fleisher has come forward to say that yes they had the report nearly a full year before the president used the discredited report of the uranium sales as part of his campaign of mis-information. Now can you honestly tell me that if it had been a Democratic president who had done this that you would not be calling for his head on a plate? This is a little more serious then lying about wither or not your boinking the interns. If they lied about this, then what else have they been lying about?

Ya know, had you actually provided a link that didnt require me to sign my soul over to the times I would have read it and commented on it, instead of commenting on what you said [img]smile.gif[/img] You get what ya pay for dude.

[Rokenn]

Here ya go


What I Didn't Find in Africa
By JOSEPH C. WILSON 4th


WASHINGTON

Did the Bush administration manipulate intelligence about Saddam Hussein's weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq?

Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat.

For 23 years, from 1976 to 1998, I was a career foreign service officer and ambassador. In 1990, as chargé d'affaires in Baghdad, I was the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. (I was also a forceful advocate for his removal from Kuwait.) After Iraq, I was President George H. W. Bush's ambassador to Gabon and São Tomé and Príncipe; under President Bill Clinton, I helped direct Africa policy for the National Security Council.

It was my experience in Africa that led me to play a small role in the effort to verify information about Africa's suspected link to Iraq's nonconventional weapons programs. Those news stories about that unnamed former envoy who went to Niger? That's me.

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.

In late February 2002, I arrived in Niger's capital, Niamey, where I had been a diplomat in the mid-70's and visited as a National Security Council official in the late 90's. The city was much as I remembered it. Seasonal winds had clogged the air with dust and sand. Through the haze, I could see camel caravans crossing the Niger River (over the John F. Kennedy bridge), the setting sun behind them. Most people had wrapped scarves around their faces to protect against the grit, leaving only their eyes visible.

The next morning, I met with Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick at the embassy. For reasons that are understandable, the embassy staff has always kept a close eye on Niger's uranium business. I was not surprised, then, when the ambassador told me that she knew about the allegations of uranium sales to Iraq — and that she felt she had already debunked them in her reports to Washington. Nevertheless, she and I agreed that my time would be best spent interviewing people who had been in government when the deal supposedly took place, which was before her arrival.

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.

As for the actual memorandum, I never saw it. But news accounts have pointed out that the documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably forged. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.)

Before I left Niger, I briefed the ambassador on my findings, which were consistent with her own. I also shared my conclusions with members of her staff. In early March, I arrived in Washington and promptly provided a detailed briefing to the C.I.A. I later shared my conclusions with the State Department African Affairs Bureau. There was nothing secret or earth-shattering in my report, just as there was nothing secret about my trip.

Though I did not file a written report, there should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report of my debriefing in Niamey, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report summing up my trip, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president (this may have been delivered orally). While I have not seen any of these reports, I have spent enough time in government to know that this is standard operating procedure.

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

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. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Those are the facts surrounding my efforts. The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government.

The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses. (It's worth remembering that in his March "Meet the Press" appearance, Mr. Cheney said that Saddam Hussein was "trying once again to produce nuclear weapons.") At a minimum, Congress, which authorized the use of military force at the president's behest, should want to know if the assertions about Iraq were warranted.

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained international response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it had an active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research program — all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf war of 1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

But were these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out. America's foreign policy depends on the sanctity of its information. For this reason, questioning the selective use of intelligence to justify the war in Iraq is neither idle sniping nor "revisionist history," as Mr. Bush has suggested. The act of war is the last option of a democracy, taken when there is a grave threat to our national security. More than 200 American soldiers have lost their lives in Iraq already. We have a duty to ensure that their sacrifice came for the right reasons.


Joseph C. Wilson 4th, United States ambassador to Gabon from 1992 to 1995, is an international business consultant.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by MagiK: Ya know, had you actually provided a link that didnt require me to sign my soul over to the times I would have read it and commented on it, instead of commenting on what you said [img]smile.gif[/img] You get what ya pay for dude.

Ya know, out of all the spam email I get, I receive NONE of it due to signing up for free news at NY Times. You really don't have to sign your life over, you CoC. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Ya know, had you actually provided a link that didnt require me to sign my soul over to the times I would have read it and commented on it, instead of commenting on what you said [img]smile.gif[/img] You get what ya pay for dude.

Ya know, out of all the spam email I get, I receive NONE of it due to signing up for free news at NY Times. You really don't have to sign your life over, you CoC. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]Well maybe he is afraid the TIA/Homeland Security will see he is reading the Times and put him on a watch list as a possible liberal [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Interesting article, Rokenn. It certainly raises some troubling questions, but it also raised some questions in my mind about the reporter and his mission itself.

I'm certainly no expert on C.I.A. policies nor the intricacies of how they conduct their business, but I found it very odd that Joseph Wilson did not submit a written report of his findings to the Agency for presentation to Dick Cheney. This seem like it would be Standard Operating Procedures to me, especially if the contents of the report could verify (or debunk) the allegations of Iraq attempting to buy uranium. Either way, it just doesn't make sense to me why Mr. Wilson didn't file an official written summary of his findings.

Look at it this way...if Joseph Wilson had submitted a written summary of his findings, then he could state unequivocally that the VP Cheney had written documentation that Iraq had not attempted to purchase uranium from Niger. Instead, he submitted an oral summation which in turn was possibly communicated to VP Cheney orally also. As for any official documentation of his trip, he cannot conclusively state that any exists, although he suggests that at least 4 separated documents should be available to verify his trip to Niger. And if he had submitted a written report, he would then have some very strong ammunition to use against Bush's reasons for going to war, especially if that document had mysteriously disappeared. Instead, he presented an oral summation which was then possibly summarized further in oral communication only to VP Cheney. That just seems like a strange way to treat a report that could justify (or refute) America's reasons for entering a war.

The one line that bothered me the most was at the end, where Mr. Wilson trumpets the slogan of the anti-war crowd that we "need to make sure American soldiers died for the right reason". The right reason??? Excuse me? The "right reason" is because they chose to join the military and to go serve wherever they may be sent, whether they agreed or disagreed with the mission. As for the "real reason" of the war...it was to remove Saddam Hussein...and nothing short of a military invasion was going to accomplish that. Hussein would never have stepped down - and his regime of terror and torture would have continued as long as he was allowed to remain in charge.

I'll agree that this raises some questions that should be investigated further and answered by President Bush. But as far as your comment about "if he lied about this, what else did he lie about?", that applies to every President and their Cabinets, regardless of political affiliation. There is no irrefutable proof (yet ) that President Bush lied, but there is irrefutable proof that his predecessor did. If Clinton lied about Lewinsky (and he finally, reluctantly admitted that he did), then what else did he lie about?

The "Accusation Avenue" runs both ways and neither side is spotless or blameless.

Too late [img]smile.gif[/img] I already readit elsewhere, and seeing as how I don't see Fleischer saying the administration knowingly mislead anyone and in fact says that the President did not know the info was bogus untill later...there is a non-issue here. Of course I know no one ever gets bad intelligence information in their own organizations....what do you want? really? perfection? For 11 years the intelligence agencies and previous presidents worried about and believed that Iraq posed a credible WoMD threat. Again, it was only ONE reason why Iraq was invaded. Read Powell's address to the UN...its quite lengthy and had only a small portion devoted to WoMD.

Cerek, the whole story is a non-issue trumped up by people who don't have a clue about how the agency works or how intel gets handled.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by Cerek the Barbaric:I'll agree that this raises some questions that should be investigated further and answered by President Bush. But as far as your comment about "if he lied about this, what else did he lie about?", that applies to every President and their Cabinets, regardless of political affiliation. There is no irrefutable proof (yet ) that President Bush lied, but there is irrefutable proof that his predecessor did. If Clinton lied about Lewinsky (and he finally, reluctantly admitted that he did), then what else did he lie about? The "Accusation Avenue" runs both ways and neither side is spotless or blameless.

Thanks for talking to the point I've been trying to make. The endless investagations of Clinton were started over much less reliable information then this. Also the allegations Ambassador Wilson was investagating had already been reported and debunked by Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick. So as he stated his findings were nothing new or earth-shattering.

Also as I posted already someone lying about there sex life is not something we should really care about. Someone lying about national security is.

Originally posted by Rokenn: Also as I posted already someone lying about there sex life is not something we should really care about. Someone lying about national security is.

Pergury is pergury, there is no distinction to be made. You swear under oath in a court of law you become liable for your prevarications...not to mention the misappropriations of government property, nor the abuses of staff that would get you fired from any civilian job.

[Rokenn]

Originally posted by MagiK: Cerek, the whole story is a non-issue trumped up by people who don't have a clue about how the agency works or how intel gets handled.

So it is reasonable to assume that it takes intel a year to reach the top people? Or is it just intel that disagrees with current policy that is ignored or shuttled to the slow lane. Please enlighten us poor stupid pleebs about how a debunked piece of intel can be used to set/help justify US foriegn policy.