Here's a long piece I wrot about the entire Niger claim.
Niger Yellow Cake Uranium Claim[/b]
???Should this regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.??? President Bush, weekly radio address, 9/14/02
???If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.??? Iraq White Paper, 10/4/02
"If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." President Bush, Cincinnati speech to Veterans of Foreign Wars, 10/7/02
???The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.??? State Department Fact Sheet on Iraq???s Declaration to U.N., 12/19/02
???The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.??? President Bush, State of the Union, 1/29/03
"The judgment in the NIE was that if Saddam could acquire fissile material, weapons-grade material, that he would have a nuclear weapon within a few months to a year. That was the judgment of the intelligence community of the United States, and they had a high degree of confidence in it." Vice President Cheney on Meet The Press after the war on 9/14/03
One of the two major foundations for the U.S. claim that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program and could have a bomb within a year was the claim that Iraq had tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger beginning in 1999. This turned out to be based upon forged documents turned over to the U.S. by Italy. Despite the major questions about its authenticity, the U.S. intelligence community first grew to accept it, then move away from the claim. The Bush administration however, was looking so hard for evidence of Iraq???s nuclear program that they went public with the Niger claim in Bush???s State of the Union address in January 2003 despite the intelligence services telling them not to. After the war ended the administration and CIA played a blame game about how the claim ended up in Bush???s speech. An even larger controversy emerged as the White House tried to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson who went public with his criticism of the Niger case by exposing his wife as a CIA analyst. Cheney???s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby has been indicted over this. The Niger story became a perfect example of the administration exaggerating the threat about Iraq with no solid evidence, and then trying to cover it up and later attacking its critics for exposing them.
The Niger claim began in February 1999 when the U.S. received an unverified intelligence report from Italy that Iraq had tried to buy 500 metric tons of yellow cake uranium from Niger. There was no evidence that the uranium arrived, and the CIA questioned the veracity of the report. When Bush came into office the Italians tried to pass the information directly to the White House. The head of Italian intelligence met with a neoconservative Michael Ledeen, who passed the yellow cake story on to Rice???s Deputy National Security Advisor Stephan Hadley.
The CIA issued its first report on the Niger claim on 10/11/01 when they outlined the documents they received. The intelligence community was divided about whether the claim was true or not, but all noted that it was not corroborated.
The administration first heard about the claim on 2/12/02 when Cheney read a DIA report about the Niger deal and asked the CIA for more info. The CIA told him that it lacked details and further proof.
Because of Cheney???s inquiry the CIA sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claim in February 2002. Wilson???s wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA analyst, suggested his name. Wilson found no evidence of the deal, but did mention Iraq contacting a Niger business about buying uranium in 1999. Nothing happened though. U.S. intelligence was divided about whether Wilson???s report proved or disproved the Niger story.
7/22/02 The Department of Energy released a report on Niger saying that it was one of three pieces of evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. It did note that the uranium had never been delivered and that the quantity was far larger than Iraq actually needed but used it as evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from overseas. This was the first time the intelligence community used the Niger claim as part of its larger argument that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program.
Beginning in September 2002 the administration tried to use the Niger claim in various speeches, but the CIA always told them to remove it because it was not proven. This was also the month that the Niger claim went public when England released a White Paper on Iraq and Prime Minister Tony Blair made a speech about it saying that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. The CIA told the British not to use the claim because it was not proven, but England used it anyway. The British had received the same documents as the U.S. had from Italian intelligence.
9/26/02 Secretary of State Powell made the first official administration statement on the Niger deal when he mentioned it in congressional testimony.
10/1/02 the Niger claim was included in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq as proof that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program. It said that it did not know whether the deal ever went through, but it was evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from overseas to build a nuclear bomb. The State Department had a sidebar in the NIE stating its opposition to the claim. On 10/4/02 however, the Iraq White Paper did not use the Niger claim.
The growing belief in the Niger claim was again shown when U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq. The U.S. claimed that Iraq did not include the Niger deal to the inspectors and that this was a violation of the new U.N. resolution in December 2002.
The State Department was the last major intelligence service that did not believe in the Niger claim. They changed their mind on 12/19/02 when they released a report on the new U.N. inspections saying that Iraq had not reported the Niger claim. This was the first public mention of the story in the U.S. Internally there were still disputes over the Niger story within the intelligence community
Late January 2003 the debate over Niger continued as the National Security Council began writing Bush???s State of the Union speech. The administration wanted to use the report, while the CIA didn???t. First the White House changed the claim from Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger, to trying to buy it from Africa since the British White Paper had already made that public. Then because the CIA still objected, the speech claimed that England had found evidence of Iraq trying to buy uranium from Africa to remove the U.S. completely from the story. The speech was given on 1/28/03. Bush said that it was proof that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program. An internal investigation by the President???s Foreign Intelligence Board in May 2003 found that the administration included the Niger claim because it was desperate to find evidence against Iraq.
In February 2003 the Niger claim was finally proven false by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which took 10 days to find out the agreement between Niger and Iraq could not have been honored and just a few hours using a Google search to find that the documents from Italy were forged.
The IAEA???s findings heated up the internal debates within the intelligence community. On 2/11/03 the senior African analyst at the CIA circulated a memo speculating that the Niger deal was fake followed by a 3/11/03 CIA assessment agreeing with the IAEA report, while the DIA wrote a memo to Rumsfeld on 3/8/03 defending the claim against the IAEA. Finally on 4/5/03 the National Intelligence Council agreed that the Niger deal was
faked.
At the same time Democrats in Congress began demanding the White House and intelligence community explain how the Niger claim ended up in Bush???s State of the Union address beginning in March 2003. By June the speech became a controversy as the administration first claimed that they knew nothing about the controversy over the Niger story even though the CIA had told them to remove it from various speeches. Then they blamed the CIA for letting the story be included, to finally Bush, Rice, and her deputy Hadley taking personal blame.
In May 2003 the Niger story took another turn when Cheney???s office began looking into Joseph Wilson???s trip to Niger. Publicly Cheney claimed that he didn???t know Wilson or about his trip to Niger, but in fact Cheney and his Chief of Staff Libby were deeply interested when Wilson started talking to the press criticizing Bush for using the Niger story in his State of the Union address. Beginning on 5/29/03 Libby had 18 meetings about Wilson with Cheney, the CIA and the media. This included a discussion with New York Times writer Judith Miller on 6/23/05 where he tried to discredit Wilson by saying he only went to Niger because his wife Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Eventually columnist Robert Novak printed Plame???s name in a column attacking Wilson???s trip on 7/14/03. Miller would go to jail and Libby was indicted for this incident.
Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts referring to the senate intelligence hearings that reviewed Joe Wilson's allegations:
"The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. ...
Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the [Committee's] report, not only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.
When asked how [Wilson] 'knew' that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved 'a little literary flair.'
I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact."
Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts referring to the senate intelligence hearings that reviewed Joe Wilson's allegations:
"The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. ...
Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the [Committee's] report, not only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.
When asked how [Wilson] 'knew' that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved 'a little literary flair.'
I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact."
source, please. In other words, where did you cut and paste this from?
I just wanted to say that this is the best greamlin ever. Carry on. hi cousin lefty - no school today?
the source is a press release, but he's a republican anyway so you should just ignore it because it's probably a lie. I think it was from July of 2004, so you can add it to your timeline
Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts referring to the senate intelligence hearings that reviewed Joe Wilson's allegations:
"The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. ...
Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the [Committee's] report, not only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.
When asked how [Wilson] 'knew' that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved 'a little literary flair.'
I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact."
The main point that they are referring to is that Wilson claimed that Cheney knew about his report. The Senate Committee found that Cheney had not. Fiztgerald has found that Cheney did eventually hear about Wilson's report, but I'm not sure when whether it was befor ethe war or only after Wilson started criticizing the administration.
When they say that Wilson provided some info that might prove the claim they were referring to this set of events:
"The CIA issued its first report on the Niger claim on 10/11/01 when they outlined the documents they received. The intelligence community was divided about whether the claim was true or not, but all noted that it was not corroborated.
The administration first heard about the claim on 2/12/02 when Cheney read a DIA report about the Niger deal and asked the CIA for more info. The CIA told him that it lacked details and further proof.
Because of Cheney???s inquiry the CIA sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claim in February 2002. Wilson???s wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA analyst, suggested his name. Wilson found no evidence of the deal, but did mention Iraq contacting a Niger business about buying uranium in 1999. Nothing happened though. U.S. intelligence was divided about whether Wilson???s report proved or disproved the Niger story. "
Overall though, U.S. intelligence was still not sure about the veracity of the Niger claim and when the Administraiton tried to use the claim over and over in speeches they were told not to.
"Beginning in September 2002 the administration tried to use the Niger claim in various speeches, but the CIA always told them to remove it because it was not proven. This was also the month that the Niger claim went public when England released a White Paper on Iraq and Prime Minister Tony Blair made a speech about it saying that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. The CIA told the British not to use the claim because it was not proven, but England used it anyway. The British had received the same documents as the U.S. had from Italian intelligence. "
The claim eventually made its way into the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq although it said they didn't know whether the deal ever went through or not.
"10/1/02 the Niger claim was included in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq as proof that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program. It said that it did not know whether the deal ever went through, but it was evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from overseas to build a nuclear bomb. The State Department had a sidebar in the NIE stating its opposition to the claim. On 10/4/02 however, the Iraq White Paper did not use the Niger claim."
Then you had a series of events where the Administration included the claim in the State of the Union even though U.S. intelligence told them not to. The next month the whole deal was proven faslse.
"Late January 2003 the debate over Niger continued as the National Security Council began writing Bush???s State of the Union speech. The administration wanted to use the report, while the CIA didn???t. First the White House changed the claim from Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger, to trying to buy it from Africa since the British White Paper had already made that public. Then because the CIA still objected, the speech claimed that England had found evidence of Iraq trying to buy uranium from Africa to remove the U.S. completely from the story. The speech was given on 1/28/03. Bush said that it was proof that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program. An internal investigation by the President???s Foreign Intelligence Board in May 2003 found that the administration included the Niger claim because it was desperate to find evidence against Iraq.
In February 2003 the Niger claim was finally proven false by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which took 10 days to find out the agreement between Niger and Iraq could not have been honored and just a few hours using a Google search to find that the documents from Italy were forged.
The IAEA???s findings heated up the internal debates within the intelligence community. On 2/11/03 the senior African analyst at the CIA circulated a memo speculating that the Niger deal was fake followed by a 3/11/03 CIA assessment agreeing with the IAEA report, while the DIA wrote a memo to Rumsfeld on 3/8/03 defending the claim against the IAEA. Finally on 4/5/03 the National Intelligence Council agreed that the Niger deal was faked."
That's when the whole deal became a controversy because Democrats started asking why the claim was used in the State of the Union in the first place, Wilson went public, and Cheney's office went on the attack.
"At the same time Democrats in Congress began demanding the White House and intelligence community explain how the Niger claim ended up in Bush???s State of the Union address beginning in March 2003. By June the speech became a controversy as the administration first claimed that they knew nothing about the controversy over the Niger story even though the CIA had told them to remove it from various speeches. Then they blamed the CIA for letting the story be included, to finally Bush, Rice, and her deputy Hadley taking personal blame.
In May 2003 the Niger story took another turn when Cheney???s office began looking into Joseph Wilson???s trip to Niger. Publicly Cheney claimed that he didn???t know Wilson or about his trip to Niger, but in fact Cheney and his Chief of Staff Libby were deeply interested when Wilson started talking to the press criticizing Bush for using the Niger story in his State of the Union address. Beginning on 5/29/03 Libby had 18 meetings about Wilson with Cheney, the CIA and the media. This included a discussion with New York Times writer Judith Miller on 6/23/05 where he tried to discredit Wilson by saying he only went to Niger because his wife Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Eventually columnist Robert Novak printed Plame???s name in a column attacking Wilson???s trip on 7/14/03. Miller would go to jail and Libby was indicted for this incident. "
I just wanted to say that this is the best greamlin ever. Carry on.
hi cousin lefty - no school today?
the source is a press release, but he's a republican anyway so you should just ignore it because it's probably a lie. I think it was from July of 2004, so you can add it to your timeline I believe you are right...I can ignore it as obvious spin and damage control. Notice all he does is refute that Wilson 'debunked' anything, offering no proof or specific example, simply saying that wilson debunked nothing.
I just wanted to say that this is the best greamlin ever. Carry on.
hi cousin lefty - no school today?
Hi, I know you have a lot of time on your hands since you lost your job with the Department of Homeland Security, but with the indictment going on you should really steer clear of the internet.
I just wanted to say that this is the best greamlin ever. Carry on.
hi cousin lefty - no school today?
Hi, I know you have a lot of time on your hands since you lost your job with the Department of Homeland Security, but with the indictment going on you should really steer clear of the internet.
are you swiftboating me? I prefer myspace when Im trolling, but sometimes i come hear because the kids are more gullible.
I just wanted to say that this is the best greamlin ever. Carry on.
hi cousin lefty - no school today?
Hi, I know you have a lot of time on your hands since you lost your job with the Department of Homeland Security, but with the indictment going on you should really steer clear of the internet.
are you swiftboating me? I prefer myspace when Im trolling, but sometimes i come hear because the kids are more gullible. You pederast republicans are all the same.
Intelligence Committee Chairman Pat Roberts referring to the senate intelligence hearings that reviewed Joe Wilson's allegations:
"The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. ...
Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the [Committee's] report, not only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.
When asked how [Wilson] 'knew' that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved 'a little literary flair.'
I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact."
What does this prove????????
Assuming Joe Wilson was "debunked" than I guess he should take Dionne Warwick's job as a fortune teller because he still got the bottom line right. THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. The white house has admitted this, do you know something they don't?
Boiled down, your point seems to be that Wilson was at fault for not proving with 100% assurance that Iraq did NOT seek to buy uranium from Niger. Unfortunately, you have things ass backwards. It was the white house who should have had the burden to prove with (close to) 100% assurance that Iraq was trying to build wmds.
Did you forget that Bush relied on these "facts" as a means to support going to fucking war?!?
My point was only that I don't believe the allegations that Bush said it was alright to leak the name, I don't believe it (a) because I don't think he (Libby) has much credibility and is probably looking to deflect some of the attention/blame to where some investigators and the press obviously want's it to go; and (b) I just don't see why Cheney would even tell him this even if it were true. I may turn out to be wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but I just don't see it, and I think it doesnt help the Democratic party to try and seize on every mistep and puff it up into an impeachable offense. I guess it serves the purpose of grinding things to a halt, and prevents the Republicans from moving forward with their agenda, so I see the political upside for them, but in the long run, I think the lack of an alternative positive message hurts. Which lead to ...
My subsequent point was that I think the democrats should stop selling their soul to the big doners of the far left, get back to the populist principles that kept them in power for 40 years and the country would be a lot better off.
My point was only that I don't believe the allegations that Bush said it was alright to leak the name
That is not what is being alleged. Check your facts before making 20 posts that don't make any sense.
Libby did not tell the grand jury that Bush said it was ok to leak Plame's name. He said that Bush said it was ok to leak certain classified information which supported the white house's claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Libby has only said..so far..that Cheney had used Plame's name.
fine, i dont believe that he authorized the leaking of the information which I would imagine includes the name of Wilson's wife, for all the same reasons stated above.
fine, i dont believe that he authorized the leaking of the information which I would imagine includes the name of Wilson's wife, for all the same reasons stated above.
ok, if bush didn't authorize the leak, then who did?
Libby was Cheney's Chief of Staff, so if bush didn't give the ok, then it had to have been Cheney. Your reasons for why Libby is not telling the truth are, not surpisingly, nonsensical. If Libby would have said that Bush or CHeney did NOT authorize the leak...then there would be reason for skepticism. But cmon, you really think for something this significant Libby did not get approval from his higher-ups??
fine, i dont believe that he authorized the leaking of the information which I would imagine includes the name of Wilson's wife, for all the same reasons stated above.
ok, if bush didn't authorize the leak, then who did?
Libby was Cheney's Chief of Staff, so if bush didn't give the ok, then it had to have been Cheney. Your reasons for why Libby is not telling the truth are, not surpisingly, nonsensical. If Libby would have said that Bush or CHeney did NOT authorize the leak...then there would be reason for skepticism. But cmon, you really think for something this significant Libby did not get approval from his higher-ups??
I'm sure he did, I'm even willing to accept that Cheney gave him the go ahead, I'm even willing to believe that Bush gave Cheney the go ahead (assuming that its not Cheney that gives the Bush the go ahead), I just don't think that Cheney would have told Libby even if it were the case, like you said, he's Libby's boss, no need to provide any higher authority than "I'm telling you."
fine, i dont believe that he authorized the leaking of the information which I would imagine includes the name of Wilson's wife, for all the same reasons stated above.
ok, if bush didn't authorize the leak, then who did?
Libby was Cheney's Chief of Staff, so if bush didn't give the ok, then it had to have been Cheney. Your reasons for why Libby is not telling the truth are, not surpisingly, nonsensical. If Libby would have said that Bush or CHeney did NOT authorize the leak...then there would be reason for skepticism. But cmon, you really think for something this significant Libby did not get approval from his higher-ups??
I'm sure he did, I'm even willing to accept that Cheney gave him the go ahead, I'm even willing to believe that Bush gave Cheney the go ahead (assuming that its not Cheney that gives the Bush the go ahead), I just don't think that Cheney would have told Libby even if it were the case, like you said, he's Libby's boss, no need to provide any higher authority than "I'm telling you."
ok, so you agree that cheney gave libby the order, but disagree that bush was involved. now please explain why libby would lie to the grand jury about bush and risk being charged with perjury? what does he have to gain from this?
keep in mind that libby appeared before the grand jury because he is facing trial for PERJURUY and that he wasn't charged with outing a cia agent. also, whether it was cheney or bush who gave him the order is inconsequential to his charges. matter of fact, whether he was given an order at all is inconsequential, the perjury charge relates to the fact that he told investigators that he never discussed Plame with reporters when he actually did. Whether Bush or Cheney ordered him to leak information is irrelevant to whether he lied about doing so.
I am curious to learn more about these populist principles of which you speak. Real headz want to know the deal.
Libby's defense strategy is to get the case thrown out because Bush/Cheney are going to deny the prosecution access to the documents in question, citing national security issues. It's a gamble but a calculated one. This move is condoned at the Presidential level, believe that.
I am curious to learn more about these populist principles of which you speak. Real headz want to know the deal.
Libby's defense strategy is to get the case thrown out because Bush/Cheney are going to deny the prosecution access to the documents in question, citing national security issues. It's a gamble but a calculated one. This move is condoned at the Presidential level, believe that.
My subsequent point was that I think the democrats Republicans should stop selling their soul to the big doners of the far left whoever Jack Abramoff can line up, stop focusing on wedge issues and duping evangelical Christians, whom they call "wackos," into voting according to those wedge issues, get back to the populist actual reasonable conservative principles that kept them in power for 40 years make some sense and could actually help the country far more than "divide and conquer" does, and the country would be a lot better off.
My subsequent point was that I think the democrats Republicans should stop selling their soul to the big doners of the far left whoever Jack Abramoff can line up, stop focusing on wedge issues and duping evangelical Christians, whom they call "wackos," into voting according to those wedge issues, get back to the populist actual reasonable conservative principles that kept them in power for 40 years make some sense and could actually help the country far more than "divide and conquer" does, and the country would be a lot better off.
I am curious to learn more about these populist principles of which you speak. Real headz want to know the deal.
Libby's defense strategy is to get the case thrown out because Bush/Cheney are going to deny the prosecution access to the documents in question, citing national security issues. It's a gamble but a calculated one. This move is condoned at the Presidential level, believe that.
you know, shining city on hill, shit like that.
Dood, you can do a lot better than that. Don't be shy.
I am curious to learn more about these populist principles of which you speak. Real headz want to know the deal.
Libby's defense strategy is to get the case thrown out because Bush/Cheney are going to deny the prosecution access to the documents in question, citing national security issues. It's a gamble but a calculated one. This move is condoned at the Presidential level, believe that.
you know, shining city on hill, shit like that.
Dood, you can do a lot better than that. Don't be shy.
whoa McClellan was getting a little testy in the press conference just now...the fact that he's backpedaling on what he said last year and actually trying to justify this shit is mindblowing. What a piece of shit.
I've been home taking care of Miles for a few days, and it's been funny to watch how Fox news has been ignoring this crisis. Every time you flip from CNN or MSNBC (say, covering the Press briefing today) Fox is still going on about the CRISIS AT THE BORDER or somesuch, with some gun-toting flat-top going on about how unpatriotic is is to wave a mexican flag at an immigration protest. Apparently the "Mexican Menace" is more important than whether or nor Fearless Leader is still flushing the Constitution down the shitter...
I've been home taking care of Miles for a few days, and it's been funny to watch how Fox news has been ignoring this crisis. Every time you flip from CNN or MSNBC (say, covering the Press briefing today) Fox is still going on about the CRISIS AT THE BORDER or somesuch, with some gun-toting flat-top going on about how unpatriotic is is to wave a mexican flag at an immigration protest. Apparently the "Mexican Menace" is more important than whether or nor Fearless Leader is still flushing the Constitution down the shitter...
i would think you would have a parental block on the Fox channel. What are you doing watching it, even I can't stand Fox, christ. The morning Fox-and-Friends is unbearably stoopid, but the O'Brien couple on CNN aren't much better.
I am curious to learn more about these populist principles of which you speak. Real headz want to know the deal.
Libby's defense strategy is to get the case thrown out because Bush/Cheney are going to deny the prosecution access to the documents in question, citing national security issues. It's a gamble but a calculated one. This move is condoned at the Presidential level, believe that.
Besides the secret document hold up he seems to be implying that he got the OK to out Plame from Cheney and by implication Bush, so he's trying to say that everything he did was in service to the president.
I don't see how this is going to save him from the perjury charge however. He told the grand jury that when he talked to the media they told him Plame's name, which everyone has refuted as the other way around, he went to them trying to spread his name in an attempt to discredit Wilson.
I am curious to learn more about these populist principles of which you speak. Real headz want to know the deal.
Libby's defense strategy is to get the case thrown out because Bush/Cheney are going to deny the prosecution access to the documents in question, citing national security issues. It's a gamble but a calculated one. This move is condoned at the Presidential level, believe that.
Besides the secret document hold up he seems to be implying that he got the OK to out Plame from Cheney and by implication Bush, so he's trying to say that everything he did was in service to the president.
I don't see how this is going to save him from the perjury charge however. He told the grand jury that when he talked to the media they told him Plame's name, which everyone has refuted as the other way around, he went to them trying to spread his name in an attempt to discredit Wilson.
If he can tie up the prosecution, which now needs to get the docs from th Pres, he thinks he can get the case dropped. No docs=no case or that's the theory. Dude has very good lawyers.
Comments
Niger Yellow Cake Uranium Claim[/b]
???Should this regime acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year.??? President Bush, weekly radio address, 9/14/02
???If Baghdad acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile material from abroad, it could make a nuclear weapon within a year.??? Iraq White Paper, 10/4/02
"If the Iraqi regime is able to produce, buy, or steal an amount of highly enriched uranium a little larger than a single softball, it could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year." President Bush, Cincinnati speech to Veterans of Foreign Wars, 10/7/02
???The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.??? State Department Fact Sheet on Iraq???s Declaration to U.N., 12/19/02
???The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.??? President Bush, State of the Union, 1/29/03
"The judgment in the NIE was that if Saddam could acquire fissile material, weapons-grade material, that he would have a nuclear weapon within a few months to a year. That was the judgment of the intelligence community of the United States, and they had a high degree of confidence in it." Vice President Cheney on Meet The Press after the war on 9/14/03
One of the two major foundations for the U.S. claim that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program and could have a bomb within a year was the claim that Iraq had tried to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger beginning in 1999. This turned out to be based upon forged documents turned over to the U.S. by Italy. Despite the major questions about its authenticity, the U.S. intelligence community first grew to accept it, then move away from the claim. The Bush administration however, was looking so hard for evidence of Iraq???s nuclear program that they went public with the Niger claim in Bush???s State of the Union address in January 2003 despite the intelligence services telling them not to. After the war ended the administration and CIA played a blame game about how the claim ended up in Bush???s speech. An even larger controversy emerged as the White House tried to discredit former Ambassador Joseph Wilson who went public with his criticism of the Niger case by exposing his wife as a CIA analyst. Cheney???s Chief of Staff Lewis Libby has been indicted over this. The Niger story became a perfect example of the administration exaggerating the threat about Iraq with no solid evidence, and then trying to cover it up and later attacking its critics for exposing them.
The Niger claim began in February 1999 when the U.S. received an unverified intelligence report from Italy that Iraq had tried to buy 500 metric tons of yellow cake uranium from Niger. There was no evidence that the uranium arrived, and the CIA questioned the veracity of the report. When Bush came into office the Italians tried to pass the information directly to the White House. The head of Italian intelligence met with a neoconservative Michael Ledeen, who passed the yellow cake story on to Rice???s Deputy National Security Advisor Stephan Hadley.
The CIA issued its first report on the Niger claim on 10/11/01 when they outlined the documents they received. The intelligence community was divided about whether the claim was true or not, but all noted that it was not corroborated.
The administration first heard about the claim on 2/12/02 when Cheney read a DIA report about the Niger deal and asked the CIA for more info. The CIA told him that it lacked details and further proof.
Because of Cheney???s inquiry the CIA sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claim in February 2002. Wilson???s wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA analyst, suggested his name. Wilson found no evidence of the deal, but did mention Iraq contacting a Niger business about buying uranium in 1999. Nothing happened though. U.S. intelligence was divided about whether Wilson???s report proved or disproved the Niger story.
7/22/02 The Department of Energy released a report on Niger saying that it was one of three pieces of evidence that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program. It did note that the uranium had never been delivered and that the quantity was far larger than Iraq actually needed but used it as evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from overseas. This was the first time the intelligence community used the Niger claim as part of its larger argument that Iraq had restarted its nuclear program.
Beginning in September 2002 the administration tried to use the Niger claim in various speeches, but the CIA always told them to remove it because it was not proven. This was also the month that the Niger claim went public when England released a White Paper on Iraq and Prime Minister Tony Blair made a speech about it saying that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. The CIA told the British not to use the claim because it was not proven, but England used it anyway. The British had received the same documents as the U.S. had from Italian intelligence.
9/26/02 Secretary of State Powell made the first official administration statement on the Niger deal when he mentioned it in congressional testimony.
10/1/02 the Niger claim was included in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq as proof that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program. It said that it did not know whether the deal ever went through, but it was evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from overseas to build a nuclear bomb. The State Department had a sidebar in the NIE stating its opposition to the claim. On 10/4/02 however, the Iraq White Paper did not use the Niger claim.
The growing belief in the Niger claim was again shown when U.N. inspectors returned to Iraq. The U.S. claimed that Iraq did not include the Niger deal to the inspectors and that this was a violation of the new U.N. resolution in December 2002.
The State Department was the last major intelligence service that did not believe in the Niger claim. They changed their mind on 12/19/02 when they released a report on the new U.N. inspections saying that Iraq had not reported the Niger claim. This was the first public mention of the story in the U.S. Internally there were still disputes over the Niger story within the intelligence community
Late January 2003 the debate over Niger continued as the National Security Council began writing Bush???s State of the Union speech. The administration wanted to use the report, while the CIA didn???t. First the White House changed the claim from Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger, to trying to buy it from Africa since the British White Paper had already made that public. Then because the CIA still objected, the speech claimed that England had found evidence of Iraq trying to buy uranium from Africa to remove the U.S. completely from the story. The speech was given on 1/28/03. Bush said that it was proof that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program. An internal investigation by the President???s Foreign Intelligence Board in May 2003 found that the administration included the Niger claim because it was desperate to find evidence against Iraq.
In February 2003 the Niger claim was finally proven false by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which took 10 days to find out the agreement between Niger and Iraq could not have been honored and just a few hours using a Google search to find that the documents from Italy were forged.
The IAEA???s findings heated up the internal debates within the intelligence community. On 2/11/03 the senior African analyst at the CIA circulated a memo speculating that the Niger deal was fake followed by a 3/11/03 CIA assessment agreeing with the IAEA report, while the DIA wrote a memo to Rumsfeld on 3/8/03 defending the claim against the IAEA. Finally on 4/5/03 the National Intelligence Council agreed that the Niger deal was faked.
At the same time Democrats in Congress began demanding the White House and intelligence community explain how the Niger claim ended up in Bush???s State of the Union address beginning in March 2003. By June the speech became a controversy as the administration first claimed that they knew nothing about the controversy over the Niger story even though the CIA had told them to remove it from various speeches. Then they blamed the CIA for letting the story be included, to finally Bush, Rice, and her deputy Hadley taking personal blame.
In May 2003 the Niger story took another turn when Cheney???s office began looking into Joseph Wilson???s trip to Niger. Publicly Cheney claimed that he didn???t know Wilson or about his trip to Niger, but in fact Cheney and his Chief of Staff Libby were deeply interested when Wilson started talking to the press criticizing Bush for using the Niger story in his State of the Union address. Beginning on 5/29/03 Libby had 18 meetings about Wilson with Cheney, the CIA and the media. This included a discussion with New York Times writer Judith Miller on 6/23/05 where he tried to discredit Wilson by saying he only went to Niger because his wife Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Eventually columnist Robert Novak printed Plame???s name in a column attacking Wilson???s trip on 7/14/03. Miller would go to jail and Libby was indicted for this incident.
"The former Ambassador, either by design or through ignorance, gave the American people and, for that matter, the world a version of events that was inaccurate, unsubstantiated, and misleading. ...
Time and again, Joe Wilson told anyone who would listen that the President had lied to the American people, that the Vice President had lied, and that he had 'debunked' the claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa. As discussed in the Niger section of the [Committee's] report, not only did he NOT 'debunk' the claim, he actually gave some intelligence analysts even more reason to believe that it may be true.
When asked how [Wilson] 'knew' that the Intelligence Community had rejected the possibility of a Niger-Iraq uranium deal, as he wrote in his book, he told Committee staff that his assertion may have involved 'a little literary flair.'
I believed very strongly that it was important for the Committee to conclude publicly that many of the statements made by Ambassador Wilson were not only incorrect, but had no basis in fact."
source, please. In other words, where did you cut and paste this from?
I just wanted to say that this is the best greamlin ever. Carry on.
I just wanted to say that this is the best greamlin ever. Carry on.
hi cousin lefty - no school today?
the source is a press release, but he's a republican anyway so you should just ignore it because it's probably a lie. I think it was from July of 2004, so you can add it to your timeline
The main point that they are referring to is that Wilson claimed that Cheney knew about his report. The Senate Committee found that Cheney had not. Fiztgerald has found that Cheney did eventually hear about Wilson's report, but I'm not sure when whether it was befor ethe war or only after Wilson started criticizing the administration.
When they say that Wilson provided some info that might prove the claim they were referring to this set of events:
"The CIA issued its first report on the Niger claim on 10/11/01 when they outlined the documents they received. The intelligence community was divided about whether the claim was true or not, but all noted that it was not corroborated.
The administration first heard about the claim on 2/12/02 when Cheney read a DIA report about the Niger deal and asked the CIA for more info. The CIA told him that it lacked details and further proof.
Because of Cheney???s inquiry the CIA sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigate the claim in February 2002. Wilson???s wife, Valerie Plame, a CIA analyst, suggested his name. Wilson found no evidence of the deal, but did mention Iraq contacting a Niger business about buying uranium in 1999. Nothing happened though. U.S. intelligence was divided about whether Wilson???s report proved or disproved the Niger story. "
Overall though, U.S. intelligence was still not sure about the veracity of the Niger claim and when the Administraiton tried to use the claim over and over in speeches they were told not to.
"Beginning in September 2002 the administration tried to use the Niger claim in various speeches, but the CIA always told them to remove it because it was not proven. This was also the month that the Niger claim went public when England released a White Paper on Iraq and Prime Minister Tony Blair made a speech about it saying that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. The CIA told the British not to use the claim because it was not proven, but England used it anyway. The British had received the same documents as the U.S. had from Italian intelligence. "
The claim eventually made its way into the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq although it said they didn't know whether the deal ever went through or not.
"10/1/02 the Niger claim was included in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq as proof that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program. It said that it did not know whether the deal ever went through, but it was evidence that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from overseas to build a nuclear bomb. The State Department had a sidebar in the NIE stating its opposition to the claim. On 10/4/02 however, the Iraq White Paper did not use the Niger claim."
Then you had a series of events where the Administration included the claim in the State of the Union even though U.S. intelligence told them not to. The next month the whole deal was proven faslse.
"Late January 2003 the debate over Niger continued as the National Security Council began writing Bush???s State of the Union speech. The administration wanted to use the report, while the CIA didn???t. First the White House changed the claim from Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger, to trying to buy it from Africa since the British White Paper had already made that public. Then because the CIA still objected, the speech claimed that England had found evidence of Iraq trying to buy uranium from Africa to remove the U.S. completely from the story. The speech was given on 1/28/03. Bush said that it was proof that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear program. An internal investigation by the President???s Foreign Intelligence Board in May 2003 found that the administration included the Niger claim because it was desperate to find evidence against Iraq.
In February 2003 the Niger claim was finally proven false by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which took 10 days to find out the agreement between Niger and Iraq could not have been honored and just a few hours using a Google search to find that the documents from Italy were forged.
The IAEA???s findings heated up the internal debates within the intelligence community. On 2/11/03 the senior African analyst at the CIA circulated a memo speculating that the Niger deal was fake followed by a 3/11/03 CIA assessment agreeing with the IAEA report, while the DIA wrote a memo to Rumsfeld on 3/8/03 defending the claim against the IAEA. Finally on 4/5/03 the National Intelligence Council agreed that the Niger deal was faked."
That's when the whole deal became a controversy because Democrats started asking why the claim was used in the State of the Union in the first place, Wilson went public, and Cheney's office went on the attack.
"At the same time Democrats in Congress began demanding the White House and intelligence community explain how the Niger claim ended up in Bush???s State of the Union address beginning in March 2003. By June the speech became a controversy as the administration first claimed that they knew nothing about the controversy over the Niger story even though the CIA had told them to remove it from various speeches. Then they blamed the CIA for letting the story be included, to finally Bush, Rice, and her deputy Hadley taking personal blame.
In May 2003 the Niger story took another turn when Cheney???s office began looking into Joseph Wilson???s trip to Niger. Publicly Cheney claimed that he didn???t know Wilson or about his trip to Niger, but in fact Cheney and his Chief of Staff Libby were deeply interested when Wilson started talking to the press criticizing Bush for using the Niger story in his State of the Union address. Beginning on 5/29/03 Libby had 18 meetings about Wilson with Cheney, the CIA and the media. This included a discussion with New York Times writer Judith Miller on 6/23/05 where he tried to discredit Wilson by saying he only went to Niger because his wife Valerie Plame worked for the CIA. Eventually columnist Robert Novak printed Plame???s name in a column attacking Wilson???s trip on 7/14/03. Miller would go to jail and Libby was indicted for this incident. "
hi cousin lefty - no school today?
the source is a press release, but he's a republican anyway so you should just ignore it because it's probably a lie. I think it was from July of 2004, so you can add it to your timeline
I believe you are right...I can ignore it as obvious spin and damage control. Notice all he does is refute that Wilson 'debunked' anything, offering no proof or specific example, simply saying that wilson debunked nothing.
In your own words, "Yeah, Ok."
hi cousin lefty - no school today?
Hi,
Hi,
are you swiftboating me? I prefer myspace when Im trolling, but sometimes i come hear because the kids are more gullible.
are you swiftboating me? I prefer myspace when Im trolling, but sometimes i come hear because the kids are more gullible.
You pederast republicans are all the same.
What does this prove????????
Assuming Joe Wilson was "debunked" than I guess he should take Dionne Warwick's job as a fortune teller because he still got the bottom line right. THERE IS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Africa. The white house has admitted this, do you know something they don't?
Boiled down, your point seems to be that Wilson was at fault for not proving with 100% assurance that Iraq did NOT seek to buy uranium from Niger. Unfortunately, you have things ass backwards. It was the white house who should have had the burden to prove with (close to) 100% assurance that Iraq was trying to build wmds.
Did you forget that Bush relied on these "facts" as a means to support going to fucking war?!?
My subsequent point was that I think the democrats should stop selling their soul to the big doners of the far left, get back to the populist principles that kept them in power for 40 years and the country would be a lot better off.
That is not what is being alleged. Check your facts before making 20 posts that don't make any sense.
Libby did not tell the grand jury that Bush said it was ok to leak Plame's name. He said that Bush said it was ok to leak certain classified information which supported the white house's claim that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger. Libby has only said..so far..that Cheney had used Plame's name.
ok, if bush didn't authorize the leak, then who did?
Libby was Cheney's Chief of Staff, so if bush didn't give the ok, then it had to have been Cheney. Your reasons for why Libby is not telling the truth are, not surpisingly, nonsensical. If Libby would have said that Bush or CHeney did NOT authorize the leak...then there would be reason for skepticism. But cmon, you really think for something this significant Libby did not get approval from his higher-ups??
I'm sure he did, I'm even willing to accept that Cheney gave him the go ahead, I'm even willing to believe that Bush gave Cheney the go ahead (assuming that its not Cheney that gives the Bush the go ahead), I just don't think that Cheney would have told Libby even if it were the case, like you said, he's Libby's boss, no need to provide any higher authority than "I'm telling you."
ok, so you agree that cheney gave libby the order, but disagree that bush was involved. now please explain why libby would lie to the grand jury about bush and risk being charged with perjury? what does he have to gain from this?
keep in mind that libby appeared before the grand jury because he is facing trial for PERJURUY and that he wasn't charged with outing a cia agent. also, whether it was cheney or bush who gave him the order is inconsequential to his charges. matter of fact, whether he was given an order at all is inconsequential, the perjury charge relates to the fact that he told investigators that he never discussed Plame with reporters when he actually did. Whether Bush or Cheney ordered him to leak information is irrelevant to whether he lied about doing so.
I am curious to learn more about these populist principles of which you speak. Real headz want to know the deal.
Libby's defense strategy is to get the case thrown out because Bush/Cheney are going to deny the prosecution access to the documents in question, citing national security issues. It's a gamble but a calculated one. This move is condoned at the Presidential level, believe that.
you know, shining city on hill, shit like that.
Word to that.
Im comfortable singing off on this one too.
Dood, you can do a lot better than that. Don't be shy.
No - really i can't.
i would think you would have a parental block on the Fox channel. What are you doing watching it, even I can't stand Fox, christ. The morning Fox-and-Friends is unbearably stoopid, but the O'Brien couple on CNN aren't much better.
Besides the secret document hold up he seems to be implying that he got the OK to out Plame from Cheney and by implication Bush, so he's trying to say that everything he did was in service to the president.
I don't see how this is going to save him from the perjury charge however. He told the grand jury that when he talked to the media they told him Plame's name, which everyone has refuted as the other way around, he went to them trying to spread his name in an attempt to discredit Wilson.
If he can tie up the prosecution, which now needs to get the docs from th Pres, he thinks he can get the case dropped. No docs=no case or that's the theory. Dude has very good lawyers.