It depends on what the meaning of "name" is...

[warch]

Found it! David Corn taking on the interpretation of an Iraqi visit in the big scheme of things. Oops to you?

Now on to the claim that Wilson's report to the CIA actually provided more reason to believe Iraq had been seeking yellowcake uranium. In his debriefing Wilson reported that former Nigerian Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki had told him that in 1999 he had been asked to meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Niger and Iraq. Mayaki said he assumed the delegation wanted to discuss uranium sales. But he said that although he had met with the delegation he had not been interested in pursuing any commercial dealings with Iraq. The intelligence report based on Wilson's debriefing also noted that the former minister of mines explained to Wilson that given the tight controls maintained by the French consortium in charge of uranium mining in Niger, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a shipment of uranium to a pariah state.

What did this report mean to the intelligence community? A CIA reports officer told the Senate intelligence committee that he took it as indirect confirmation of the allegation since Nigerian officials had admitted that an Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999 and since the former prime minister had said he believed Iraq was interested in purchasing uranium. But an INR analyst said that he considered the report to be corroboration of INR's position, which was that the allegation was "highly suspect" because Niger would be unlikely to engage in such a transaction and unable to transfer uranium to Iraq due to the strict controls maintained by the French consortium. But the INR analyst added, the "report could be read in different ways."

Wilson's work was thrown into the stew. The CIA continued to disseminate a report noting that a foreign intelligence service had told U.S. intelligence that Niger had agreed to supply Iraq with hundreds of tons of uranium. And in the National Intelligence Estimate produced in October 2002, the intelligence community reported that Iraq had been trying to strike a uranium deal with Niger in 2001. But the NIE noted that INR strongly disagreed with this assessment. And when the National Security Council drafted a speech for Bush in October 2002 the CIA recommended the address not include the Niger allegation because it was "debatable" whether the yellowcake could be obtained from Niger. In a follow-up fax to the NSC, the CIA said "the evidence is weak" and "the procurement is not particularly significant to Iraq's nuclear ambitions because the Iraqis already have a large stock of uranium oxide in their inventory." Still, in late January 2003 -- after the INR's Iraq analyst had concluded that papers recently obtained by U.S. intelligence related to the supposed Iraqi-Niger uranium deal were "clearly a forgery" -- Bush went ahead and accused Iraq of seeking uranium in Africa.

[Happy Monkey]

Another angle here. (And a Daily Kos thread discussing it)

There's also this Post story: Check the correction box on the side.

[Undertoad]

I'm just glad we could get to the right part of the debate. Now we have everyone (except for the Post correction, which is a non-entity IMO) agreeing that:

1. Iraqi went to Niger.

2. They wanted uranium. (It's the only meaningful export Niger has.)

3. They were turned back.

The Crooks and Liars take, which I have seen before, concludes that (and I quote) the intelligence community discounted the notion that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger; but this is Monday morning, and given the 1-2-3 facts on the table, do you come to that conclusion? Isn't it a direct contradiction to #2? Why would Crooks and Liars do that?

It gets hard to follow; but how did Wilson get those 1-2-3 facts?

4. He was a former ambassador, and highly regarded, but not an ambassador to Niger. He was ambassador to Gabon. It was 10 years ago.

5. When he went to Niger, he was told not to speak with anyone currently in the government because it could hurt further negotiations about the restrictions of yellowcake sale.

6. He was only there a week, and all he did was talk with people; they assured him that all was well and even though the Iraqis had been there, no transfer could have happened because of those restrictions.

Here are the hard questions.

Given 4-5-6, and the 1-2-3 already established, do YOU believe that Wilson could come to a very complete and total conclusion that Iraq was not seeking uranium?

When Brit intelligence comes to the conclusion that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium from Niger, does Wilson's trip negate that intelligence?

If you're Wilson, and the Pres makes his S.O.T.U. speech saying that Brit intel finds Iraq seeking uranium from Africa, do you then write to the New York Times about what you've found? Or do you wait six months until the war starts, the first invasion is over, and no stockpiles are found?

When you write to the Times, do you omit fact #2? How about #4? How about #5?

And finally, the biggest question for y'all: Is it OK that Iraq went to Niger in 1998 seeking uranium even though they were prohibited from having it? Are you copasetic with that because they did apparently get turned down? Do you think they wanted it for peaceful purposes?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

(except for the Post correction, which is a non-entity IMO)

What does that mean?

[Undertoad]

It's a correction, there's no by-line, and it contradicts everything in the Senate Intel Report specifically mentioned in the story. I'm saying it's flat-out wrong.

[Undertoad]

Update on that: a poster in the dkos thread says that Iran has its own uranium mines. Some Googling around shows that to be true.

[warch]

Do I want Iraq to buy uranium, make bombs and kill me? no.
Do I want the US to create manipulative intelligence to support their deadly move for regime change when they can't make a real case to put before the American people with fact? no.
Why is Colin Powell so ashamed of it all?

Why were these forgeries that supported the incorrect claim so ellusive, essential and crude? Would the British spread false intel, even for a little while? Would we? Why?

Why not make a real case for war? Who would think of such a thing? How about Michael "Iran-Contra" Ledeenor one of his crowd? There's a track record of traitorous wheeling and dealing with national security secrets.

Upon his return, talking with whoever and for however long, Wilson's intel was deemed good by the CIA who sent him.
As the case for war was built, Wilson smelled a rat, and who knows what else he learned. That he came forward at all, well, that has proven to be a bold move.

I will be very interested to see what Fitzgerald make of all of this mess.

[warch]

Here's a juicier link onLedeen. Who knows what's true? hmmm.

[Undertoad]

chek chek chek

testing 1 2 3

is this thread on?

[Ibby]

uh... not since about a year ago...

[Undertoad]

Hitchens put the whole thing together Tuesday, in Slate:

As most of us have long suspected, the man who told Novak about Valerie Plame was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's deputy at the State Department and, with his boss, an assiduous underminer of the president's war policy. (His and Powell's—and George Tenet's—fingerprints are all over Bob Woodward's "insider" accounts of post-9/11 policy planning, which helps clear up another nonmystery: Woodward's revelation several months ago that he had known all along about the Wilson-Plame connection and considered it to be no big deal.)

WaPo piece followed Friday, "End of an Affair":

We're reluctant to return to the subject of former CIA employee Valerie Plame because of our oft-stated belief that far too much attention and debate in Washington has been devoted to her story and that of her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, over the past three years. But all those who have opined on this affair ought to take note of the not-so-surprising disclosure that the primary source of the newspaper column in which Ms. Plame's cover as an agent was purportedly blown in 2003 was former deputy secretary of state Richard L. Armitage.

Mr. Armitage was one of the Bush administration officials who supported the invasion of Iraq only reluctantly. He was a political rival of the White House and Pentagon officials who championed the war and whom Mr. Wilson accused of twisting intelligence about Iraq and then plotting to destroy him.

Ya got that? The Plame "outer" is anti-Iraq war.

And it concludes:

Nevertheless, it now appears that the person most responsible for the end of Ms. Plame's CIA career is Mr. Wilson. Mr. Wilson chose to go public with an explosive charge, claiming -- falsely, as it turned out -- that he had debunked reports of Iraqi uranium-shopping in Niger and that his report had circulated to senior administration officials. He ought to have expected that both those officials and journalists such as Mr. Novak would ask why a retired ambassador would have been sent on such a mission and that the answer would point to his wife. He diverted responsibility from himself and his false charges by claiming that President Bush's closest aides had engaged in an illegal conspiracy. It's unfortunate that so many people took him seriously.

Fred Barnes in righty Weekly Standard lists a Hall of Shame

I was right this time, as I am 50% of the time, and I am bending over backwards to pat myself on the back for it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Congratulations. Batting .500 is also a fantastic average.



That shows if you read, research, cross check, ask the right questions, wade through the rhetoric and bullcrap, dedicate the time, trouble and resources to the quest...... you too can be as accurate as flipping a coin.

OK, I'm a smartass, but there has to be more to it. Personal satisfaction, dare I say even fun, like a hobby. One that's a hell of a lot cheaper and safer than most hobbies, too. I mean you still get only one vote at the polls unless you count people you influence or sway to your beliefs, your truth.

The question is why do we even bother? Why not wait till it all comes out in the wash? Or will it not come out in the wash, if we the people don't demand it? I suppose they wouldn't bother with all the lies, spin and pure bullshit if people didn't care..... if people didn't question.

I guess distracted or even dumb people don't really want to be sheeple. Even if they appear to be clueless or claim not to care about politics or international affairs, they don't want to be lied to, betrayed by the people they voted for.

The fact that I'm rambling, thinking on the keyboard, proves i don't have the answer. Sorry, carry on.

[tw]

[quote=Undertoad Ya got that? The Plame "outer" is anti-Iraq war.[/QUOTE] One can only say that if a political agenda justifies the spin - lying by telling half truths. Armitage is a founding member of Project for New American Century. Does that sound like someone anti-Iraq war? He was Sec of State Powell's assistant and good friend. He was not anti-war as UT so intentionally misrepresents. Armitage was not a 'gun slinger' - somebody who would routinely and publicly lie to disparage others. UT, you knew that. Why then did you post that misrepresetation of Armitage – as only a ‘gun slinger’ would do?

[Griff]

I didn't remember Armitage was PNAC, that does change things. I wonder why Schorr gave him a pass?

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...I was right this time, as I am 50% of the time, and I am bending over backwards to pat myself on the back for it.

So, your saying Karl Rove only gave away her first name (50%)?