Non Existent Yellowcake Removed From Iraq

[jsbrook]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Yes, and the State Department interpreted his findings as confirmation that the Niger report was not credible.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200702090007

A Senate Intelligence Report also concluded a few years later that the report could be read in different ways. The point is that there was NEVER a consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But we were not informed of this for years. We were solely and exclusively told about evidence and interpreations that they did.

Well at least your linking to a liberal spin group. We can always trust them.[/quote]

Of course. Because the underlying fact of what the State Department said is not established. And because the original link Zap posted to is not at all biased. Not one bit. Now I see the light and it all makes sense.

[100meters]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
The Mage wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Perhaps Wilson lied or was wrong. But at the time Bush made those statements, our own investigations uncovered no evidence that Britain was correct. There was nothing at the time to suggest Wilson’s statement was incorrect or his investigation flawed. At best, Bush’s statement was misleading. He was very happy to disclose Britain’s investigations but neglected to mention that our OWN investigations revealed nothing of the kind. That is something we deserved to know.

Did you actually read the link?

But that’s not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA’s view, Wilson’s report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa.

They specifically noted that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed that Iraq was trying to buy the “yellow cake” and that Iraqi officials did travel there.

So obviously the CIA thought it was happening, and was, so why should Bush suddenly know more then what the CIA told him?

Uhmmm…senior most CIA did not think it was happening and said so ( “Remove this from speech please”) tools at WINPAC CIA were pushing the unlikely notion. After the SOTU, CIA totally walked away from it. Zap never got the memo though.

You mean Wilson the liar’s wife wanted it removed from the speech. The Brits and Italians thought it was accurate.

[/quote]

You changed the subject. He said:
“So obviously the CIA thought it was happening”
It wasn’t “obvious” it was actively contested by higher ups (including Tenet)----(laughably you tried with Plame–so facts not still not a strong suit with you).

And the Brits intel based on forged Niger documents, funny the CIA actively disagreed with the Brits to boot!.

In conclusion, prior to SOTU, prior to Cincinnati speech, the top people at the CIA (that still isn’t Plame) were repeatedly saying don’t make a niger/Iraq claim or even an africa/iraq claim. So, clearly the president knew, hence the lame SOTU reference to the “Brits” intel, which was based on forgeries, which had been questioned as improbable already by the CIA and IAEA, and already been pointed out as forgeries by the INR

You are as usual, dead wrong.

Also it helps if you remember that we were misled into the war, and the Niger claims are a wonderful example of it. Get it?

[The_Mage]

[quote]jsbrook wrote:

Of course. Because the underlying fact of what the State Department said is not established. And because the original link Zap posted to is not at all biased. Not one bit. Now I see the light and it all makes sense.[/quote]

Which one? The legitimate news organization, or factcheck.org which is just as hard on Republicans?

Media Matters is a spin organization pure and simple. They come very close to admitting it themselves, especially in the fact that they only act on “conservative” (read Republican,) speech.

Regardless even you are putting a spin on this. The facts are that Saddam had uranium oxide, he wanted more, he wanted to fabricate a bomb. And the IAEA, while removing what they were able to in the late 90’s, reported that he definitely had a program in place, and was close to success, though he had not succeeded.

I know you people hate Bush, but that is no reason to sweep under the rug what Saddam was really trying to do, and who, or what he really was.

[100meters]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Of course. Because the underlying fact of what the State Department said is not established. And because the original link Zap posted to is not at all biased. Not one bit. Now I see the light and it all makes sense.

Which one? The legitimate news organization, or factcheck.org which is just as hard on Republicans?

Media Matters is a spin organization pure and simple. They come very close to admitting it themselves, especially in the fact that they only act on “conservative” (read Republican,) speech.

Regardless even you are putting a spin on this. The facts are that Saddam had uranium oxide, he wanted more, he wanted to fabricate a bomb. And the IAEA, while removing what they were able to in the late 90’s, reported that he definitely had a program in place, and was close to success, though he had not succeeded.

I know you people hate Bush, but that is no reason to sweep under the rug what Saddam was really trying to do, and who, or what he really was.[/quote]

The point isn’t Saddam killed puppies, the point is the “misleading” which you also did with your CIA comments above.

[jsbrook]

[quote]The Mage wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Of course. Because the underlying fact of what the State Department said is not established. And because the original link Zap posted to is not at all biased. Not one bit. Now I see the light and it all makes sense.

Which one? The legitimate news organization, or factcheck.org which is just as hard on Republicans?

Media Matters is a spin organization pure and simple. They come very close to admitting it themselves, especially in the fact that they only act on “conservative” (read Republican,) speech.

Regardless even you are putting a spin on this. The facts are that Saddam had uranium oxide, he wanted more, he wanted to fabricate a bomb. And the IAEA, while removing what they were able to in the late 90’s, reported that he definitely had a program in place, and was close to success, though he had not succeeded.

I know you people hate Bush, but that is no reason to sweep under the rug what Saddam was really trying to do, and who, or what he really was.[/quote]

I don’t hate Bush. I think he’s been a bad president and made bad choices. And, while not lying, sold them to the American public based on half the story. Repeatedly. I’m not quite sure how anyone could dispute this whatever your political affiliation…I know cause mine ain’t liberal. I also don’t doubt that Saddam wanted nuclear capabilities. I followed the issue and stayed apprised of the evidence and don’t think he was particularly close. But beyond that and more importantly, I don’t think we were given an accurate portrayal of the state of affairs. That’s what pepole are angry about. Not that Saddam wasn’t a bad guy and not that he posed no threat at all. No one with any brains is saying that. Most news organizations have a liberal bias. I don’t like it and find it annoying. But Fox news is so biased, I scarcely find it a news organization. As far as factcheck.org, it operates at a level of amateurishness that is totally inappropriate for the position of final arbiter of truth that it has claimed for itself. They have repeatedly failed at unbiased accurate reporting, sometimes being biased against Republicans. But often, they have a pro-Republican bias. They were weak during the Social Security Debate. They made some groundless claims about the People for the American Way ad during the nuclear option debate. There are many instances where their relaying of new cannot properly be called ‘reporting.’ The problem is that they want to respond immediately. They have also set themselves up as an ultimate arbiter of truth. These two goals are somewhat incompatible and they are subject to tons of spin from both sides. All too often, they read the first spin that comes in on the fax, conclude that it sounds persuasive, and run with it.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
The Mage wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Perhaps Wilson lied or was wrong. But at the time Bush made those statements, our own investigations uncovered no evidence that Britain was correct. There was nothing at the time to suggest Wilson’s statement was incorrect or his investigation flawed. At best, Bush’s statement was misleading. He was very happy to disclose Britain’s investigations but neglected to mention that our OWN investigations revealed nothing of the kind. That is something we deserved to know.

Did you actually read the link?

But that’s not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA’s view, Wilson’s report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa.

They specifically noted that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed that Iraq was trying to buy the “yellow cake” and that Iraqi officials did travel there.

So obviously the CIA thought it was happening, and was, so why should Bush suddenly know more then what the CIA told him?

Uhmmm…senior most CIA did not think it was happening and said so ( “Remove this from speech please”) tools at WINPAC CIA were pushing the unlikely notion. After the SOTU, CIA totally walked away from it. Zap never got the memo though.

You mean Wilson the liar’s wife wanted it removed from the speech. The Brits and Italians thought it was accurate.

You changed the subject. He said:
“So obviously the CIA thought it was happening”
It wasn’t “obvious” it was actively contested by higher ups (including Tenet)----(laughably you tried with Plame–so facts not still not a strong suit with you).

And the Brits intel based on forged Niger documents, funny the CIA actively disagreed with the Brits to boot!.

In conclusion, prior to SOTU, prior to Cincinnati speech, the top people at the CIA (that still isn’t Plame) were repeatedly saying don’t make a niger/Iraq claim or even an africa/iraq claim. So, clearly the president knew, hence the lame SOTU reference to the “Brits” intel, which was based on forgeries, which had been questioned as improbable already by the CIA and IAEA, and already been pointed out as forgeries by the INR

You are as usual, dead wrong.

Also it helps if you remember that we were misled into the war, and the Niger claims are a wonderful example of it. Get it?

[/quote]

I don’t know what planet you live on.

Wilson was wrong. The Senate Intel Committee rejected his report and branded him a liar.

The Brits stood by their report.

The “top people” at the CIA just passed along the lies told to them by Wilsons wife (Plame) who was their analyst. Do you think Tenent had a secret source in Niger? Do you think that guy can even wipe his ass without help?

[100meters]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
The Mage wrote:
jsbrook wrote:

Perhaps Wilson lied or was wrong. But at the time Bush made those statements, our own investigations uncovered no evidence that Britain was correct. There was nothing at the time to suggest Wilson’s statement was incorrect or his investigation flawed. At best, Bush’s statement was misleading. He was very happy to disclose Britain’s investigations but neglected to mention that our OWN investigations revealed nothing of the kind. That is something we deserved to know.

Did you actually read the link?

But that’s not the way the CIA saw it at the time. In the CIA’s view, Wilson’s report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa.

They specifically noted that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed that Iraq was trying to buy the “yellow cake” and that Iraqi officials did travel there.

So obviously the CIA thought it was happening, and was, so why should Bush suddenly know more then what the CIA told him?

Uhmmm…senior most CIA did not think it was happening and said so ( “Remove this from speech please”) tools at WINPAC CIA were pushing the unlikely notion. After the SOTU, CIA totally walked away from it. Zap never got the memo though.

You mean Wilson the liar’s wife wanted it removed from the speech. The Brits and Italians thought it was accurate.

You changed the subject. He said:
“So obviously the CIA thought it was happening”
It wasn’t “obvious” it was actively contested by higher ups (including Tenet)----(laughably you tried with Plame–so facts not still not a strong suit with you).

And the Brits intel based on forged Niger documents, funny the CIA actively disagreed with the Brits to boot!.

In conclusion, prior to SOTU, prior to Cincinnati speech, the top people at the CIA (that still isn’t Plame) were repeatedly saying don’t make a niger/Iraq claim or even an africa/iraq claim. So, clearly the president knew, hence the lame SOTU reference to the “Brits” intel, which was based on forgeries, which had been questioned as improbable already by the CIA and IAEA, and already been pointed out as forgeries by the INR

You are as usual, dead wrong.

Also it helps if you remember that we were misled into the war, and the Niger claims are a wonderful example of it. Get it?

I don’t know what planet you live on.

Wilson was wrong. The Senate Intel Committee rejected his report and branded him a liar.

The Brits stood by their report.

The “top people” at the CIA just passed along the lies told to them by Wilsons wife (Plame) who was their analyst. Do you think Tenent had a secret source in Niger? Do you think that guy can even wipe his ass without help?[/quote]
Uh, Wilson was right. 3 liars branded him a liar. We rejected the Brits report which was based on forgeries (Remember Wilson was right). The CIA, the IAEA, and the INR all disagreed with the Niger findings at the time, and said so. The people that agreed were CIA WINPAC, created by the whitehouse. They were wrong (but to be fair they were deliberately wrong).

again the Iraq-Niger thing simply based on forgeries. Now do you get it?

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]100meters wrote:
Uh, Wilson was right. 3 liars branded him a liar. We rejected the Brits report which was based on forgeries (Remember Wilson was right). The CIA, the IAEA, and the INR all disagreed with the Niger findings at the time, and said so. The people that agreed were CIA WINPAC, created by the whitehouse. They were wrong (but to be fair they were deliberately wrong).

again the Iraq-Niger thing simply based on forgeries. Now do you get it?
[/quote]

Wilsons report was rejected by the Senate. He lied. Wilson lied. His report was rejected as garbage. He lied. His report was rejected by a bipartisan Senate committee because it was garbage, but even though it was crap it did confirm that the Iraqi’s went to Niger in 1999. Since Niger’s only export worth even discussing is uranium only a fool or a liar would think the Iaqi’s went there to discuss anything else.

[100meters]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
100meters wrote:
Uh, Wilson was right. 3 liars branded him a liar. We rejected the Brits report which was based on forgeries (Remember Wilson was right). The CIA, the IAEA, and the INR all disagreed with the Niger findings at the time, and said so. The people that agreed were CIA WINPAC, created by the whitehouse. They were wrong (but to be fair they were deliberately wrong).

again the Iraq-Niger thing simply based on forgeries. Now do you get it?

Wilsons report was rejected by the Senate. He lied. Wilson lied. His report was rejected as garbage. He lied. His report was rejected by a bipartisan Senate committee because it was garbage, but even though it was crap it did confirm that the Iraqi’s went to Niger in 1999. Since Niger’s only export worth even discussing is uranium only a fool or a liar would think the Iaqi’s went there to discuss anything else.

His report was “rejected” by hacks in a whitewashing report. He was right, as was the INR, IAEA, and excluding WINPAC’ers , leadership at the CIA.

And yes, they went to Niger, but never mentioned uranium, which they couldn’t have gotten (mine controlled by French consortium, Niger would have never given it, additional mine flooded, impossible to smuggle out), and didn’t need (already had hundreds of tons of it)—see whitewashed report.

Also why oh why do you pretend to be so freaking stupid. If business men from Iraq go to Niger, they might not be seeking uranium (turns out they weren’t) but perhaps they’re offering something…say petroleum products? They had gone before offering this very thing, your imagination not able to get past yellow cake which was never asked for. Keeping in mind that at the time Folks at CIA,INR, and IAEA, and Wilson did not think Iraq was seeking yellow cake from Niger. They were all right.

The important part is the whitehouse was determined to put bad intel in speeches, despite being told over and over and over again to take it out. It wasn’t an accident, and it was meant to mislead. Just like your thread.

[/quote]