No Lies About Iraq (Updated)

1. Pingback: General ‘Stormin’ Norman’ Schwartzkopf Dead at 78 « The Foxhole

2. Pingback: No Lies About Iraq (UPDATED) | a12iggymom's Blog

3. 

   Miles

   13/08/2010 at 19:23

   I thought about just erasing everything I wrote below and replacing it with this:

   Wilson never claimed there were not weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

   Wilson, just like anyone else who was alive during the 80’s and 90’s knew that Iraq had active WMD programs up until Gulf War I. After that, they were sanctioned, and everything went into hiding, so you didn’t get reliable reporting on it, but most people knew enough not to trust that Saddam would have destroyed every last bit of it. I think he also assumed that his audience had the same knowledge, and that he didn’t have to spell out the history of Iraq’s WMDs in his op-ed.

   But he did it anyway:

   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.

   Here he is, in the same piece that you say constitutes a denial that there were ever WMD, or the threat of WMD in Iraq, spelling out the threat.

   It’s related to the Wilson saga inasmuch as he was part and parcel of the “No WMDs found” crowd.

   I think you have plenty of ammo to skewer Wilson with, but you need to use the right ammo. A story about yellowcake that had widely known to have been in Iraq before any of this happened is not appropriate to tie to Wilson. Why not find someone else who says there are/were no WMD in Iraq, and replace Wilson’s name with theirs? “No WMD in Iraq” refers to no WMD in 2003. Also, since yellowcake is an ingredient for a weapon, not a weapon itself, you still don’t have that strong of an argument.

   If people believe that there were no WMDs, its because of sound-bite reporting:

   “Bush said that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa. Wilson says that he went there and investigated, accuses Bush of twisting intelligence. Scandal…Intrigue…Plame…CIA leaks…retaliation for op-ed…leak traced back to Cheney’s office” (note lack of supporting facts about what is being said, just reporting on what is being said). It could also be because its what some Democratic politician complained (You probably know who somebody who said that).

   If that’s all you hear, it’s reasonable to think that Bush is a big fat liar, when in fact he spoke the truth. Some people who are knowledgeable about these things still think he twisted the evidence by implying that

   And that’s why I read the news instead of watch it: it gets sensationalized on TV and you don’t get the whole story.

   “The kind of yellowcake Joe Wilson claimed Iraq never sought from Niger”.

   Yes, its the same kind that you’re saying he said wasn’t sought, but he didn’t say never, he said not in 1999-2002. Stuff from that they got from Niger in 1981 isn’t part of the argument. Because they need a whole lot of the stuff (way more than the tens of tons that they had), the worry wasn’t whether they had 10 tons, but whether they’re able to obtain a steady source of it (or just a whole lot at once – lets say 10 to 20 times their current stockpile).

   Has Wilson’s report to the CIA been published? Is there a link to it? He said he didn’t file a written report, but that there was a CIA report summing up his trip.

   I haven’t edited this post properly – I have to hit the road for a 6 hour drive and I’m running late. Apologies if its disjointed
   1. 

      sfcmac

      14/08/2010 at 19:27

      Miles,
      You said:

      Wilson never claimed there were not weapons of mass destruction in Iraq….I think he also assumed that his audience had the same knowledge, and that he didn’t have to spell out the history of Iraq’s WMDs in his op-ed.
      But he did it anyway:
      “…I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.”
      ……Here he is, in the same piece that you say constitutes a denial that there were ever WMD, or the threat of WMD in Iraq, spelling out the threat.

      His behavior subsequent to his Niger trip belied whatever claim he made about the established dangers posed by Saddam. It’s as if he had some sort of anti-war epiphany. I have a reasonable suspicion it had to do with his disgruntled wife, Valerie Plame.
      He presented his report as if the invasion was based on “exaggerated” intelligence, even though he claims to acknowledge that Saddam posed considerable threats with his WMD program.
      I think I mentioned this before:
      The Select Senate Intelligence Committee report states unequivocally that Wilson lied to the media. He said that he concluded the Niger intelligence was based on a document that had clearly been forged because ‘the dates were wrong and the names were wrong’. The problem with that story is Wilson “had never seen the CIA reports and had no knowledge of what names and dates were in the reports,” according to the Senate panel. The documents that purported sales agreements between Niger and Iraq were not in U.S. hands until eight months after Wilson made his trip to Niger.
      Link here: http://old.nationalreview.com/may/may200407121105.asp
      You said:

      Why not find someone else who says there are/were no WMD in Iraq, and replace Wilson’s name with theirs? “No WMD in Iraq” refers to no WMD in 2003. Also, since yellowcake is an ingredient for a weapon, not a weapon itself, you still don’t have that strong of an argument.

      Well, there’s certainly never been a shortage of leftwingnut WMD deniers. The Guardian, Alternet, Noam Chomsky, DailyKos, Think Progress, Ron Susskind; a bevy of leftwing pundits and media consistently deny he even possessed previously discovered stockpiles. The delusional mentality of these idiots is astounding. Wilson’s vacillating and lies only added to the jackassery.
      So, I could probably say this: “The yellowcake that the Left said Saddam never had”.
      
      Since previously undiscovered WMD were found in Iraq after the invasion, the “No WMD in Iraq” is still patently false.
      As I mentioned in the post: WMD are defined as weapons capable of inflicting massive destruction to property and/or population, using chemical, biological or radioactive material.
      Sunstantial amounts of those materials were stockpiled before the invasion, and some were discovered afterward. They had the potential to be adapted to warheads and explosives used to kill thousands of people. Left unabated, Saddam Hussein would have not stopped until he did some damage on a wide scale. That’s a pretty strong argument.
      You said:

      Yes, its the same kind that you’re saying he said wasn’t sought, but he didn’t say never, he said not in 1999-2002.

      Ah, but they did seek more uranium from Niger in 1999 . Again, the 9-11 Committee found conclusively that Iraq was attempting to procure enriched (yellowcake) uranium in Africa.
      Which is what Wilson denied.
      From the Senate Intelligence Committee Report:

      The CIA’s DO said Wilson’s information] did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
      […]
      DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denial that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.
      http://web.mit.edu/simsong/www/iraqreport2-textunder.pdf

      You said:

      Stuff from that they got from Niger in 1981 isn’t part of the argument.

      Which argument? Joe Wilson or the Left? None of the far Left sites I’ve visited will even acknowledge the accumulated stockpile that started in 1981.
      Now, if Wilson admits that Saddam Hussein not only had stockpiles but “posed a danger”, why would he deny, in the face of the evidence provided by the genuine document as well as the admission by Mayaki, that Iraq wasn’t in Niger to discuss future sales of more uranium?
      Boggles the mind, doesn’t it?
      You said:

      Because they need a whole lot of the stuff (way more than the tens of tons that they had), the worry wasn’t whether they had 10 tons, but whether they’re able to obtain a steady source of it (or just a whole lot at once – lets say 10 to 20 times their current stockpile).

      It’s not like they weren’t trying.
      You said:

      Has Wilson’s report to the CIA been published? Is there a link to it? He said he didn’t file a written report, but that there was a CIA report summing up his trip.

      There was no Wilson report per se, it was a debriefing. During that debriefing he stated that there was “nothing to the story”.
      In the wake of the forged document controversy, the CIA produced an internal memo from June 17, 2003, which said, “We no longer believe there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.” The CIA did not publish an assessment to clarify or correct its position on whether or not Iraq was trying to purchase uranium from Africa. However, the aftermath, including the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Wilson’s testimony about his Niger trip, and the statements by Mayaki, raised more questions than answers.

      Here’s a link to the October 2002 CIA Report on Saddam’s WMD programs. It was published 8 months after the trip.
      https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd/Iraq_Oct_2002.htm

      As you can see, there was still a lot of concern over Saddam’s WMD capabilities.

      The mistake the CIA made was relying on an unqualified dink like Wilson to begin with, but his CIA wife helped set him up for that trip. That’s quite an interesting story, too.

      SFC MAC
4. 

   Miles

   12/08/2010 at 21:35

   I’m going to try to be really quick:

   From the reports, the genuine document reflects the 1999 meeting between Niger and the Iraqi delegation. The forgery claimed an agreement for a sale took place. Since Niger’s main export to Iraq was uranium, what do you think they discussed? That in itself is serious enough. To trivialize that is foolish.

   I agree (I think I said this earlier) that Iraq went to Niger in search of a yellowcake deal. I do not trivialize it, its a big deal if they’re looking for it because it means they want to produce nukes, which is bad since they’re some pretty bad/dangerous/reckless/violent people.

   Wilson was dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa. Wilson’s argument was that Niger and Iraq never met to discuss another deal on uranium.

   I disagree. Even if I agree with your point and concede that he was arguing that there was no attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium, I don’t think it undermines my argument that the Canada shipment is completely unrelated to the Wilson saga, so I’m just going to put forward the following quote and be done with that part of the discussion for now.

   Here’s why I think he was refuting whether there was a transaction, and not whether there was a meeting. I think I had put this in a previous post:

   “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.”

   When defining his mission, he doesn’t mention any meetings, negotiations, etc. – only an actual sale. He then went on to decry Bush’s use of the “16 words”, which say (truthfully) that Iraq sought to obtain uranium. I hold that he was complaining about how Bush presented his case. I also think that Wilson should have been more specific by acknowledging that what Bush said was true, but that it left out some important facts. I don’t think this means that Wilson lied. As I said above, this is important, but is not relevant to the discussion at hand.

   Lets take this out of context. Planet A is really powerful. Planet B is really weak, but they’re assholes, and are always trying to get weapons to hurt Planet A. Planet B is known to have stockpiles of weapons and ingredients to make unobtanium/kryptonite/antimatter. The leaders of Planet A hear that Planet B got some unobtanium/kryptonite/antimatter from Planet C. They send Woe Jilson to investigate if that’s true. Woe says “Nope, couldn’t have happened.” He even calls the leaders liars when they say that Planet B asked Planet C to send them some unobtanium/kryptonite/antimatter. Five years later, Planet A has invaded Planet B and found a bunch of unobtanium/kryptonite/antimatter. But it knew Planet B had the unobtanium/kryptonite/antimatter long before Woe Jilson was ever sent there. Does the presence of the weapons ingredients prove that Woe Jilson was wrong/lying?

   No. Everyone knew they already had it, and they also knew they would have found it when they went in. The really big story would have been if it wasn’t there. (Yes, I know, some of the stuff in Iraq disappeared – that’s a big deal). In this case, it was still there, so I think its a non-story in relation to the Joe Wilson saga. That’s why I think you should take down the statement in parentheses. I don’t see any way you can say reference Joe Wilson as a tagline for that particular story.
   1. 

      sfcmac

      13/08/2010 at 09:23

      Miles,

      You said:

      I disagree. Even if I agree with your point and concede that he was arguing that there was no attempt by Iraq to purchase uranium, I don’t think it undermines my argument that the Canada shipment is completely unrelated to the Wilson saga, so I’m just going to put forward the following quote and be done with that part of the discussion for now.

      It’s related to the Wilson saga inasmuch as he was part and parcel of the “No WMDs found” crowd.
      His lie assertion that Iraq did not seek more uranium from Niger fed the maws of that mantra.

      You said:

      When defining his mission, he doesn’t mention any meetings, negotiations, etc. – only an actual sale.

      Joe Wilson egregiously misrepresented the facts. His OpEd gave the distinct impression that Iraq was not trying to aquire more uranium from Niger; hence the “twisted” evidence “to exaggerate the Iraqi threat” statement. Patently false. He stated that his Niger trip cleared up any idea that Iraq sought uranium there and has said his findings “were ignored by the White House”. The Senate Intelligence Committee knew better and called him out on that claim.
      The intelligence estimate was based on a lot more than a faked memo. The President of Niger admitted that representatives from Iraq met with Niger government officials to seek more yellowcake. And of course, Bush never said that Iraq had “purchased” more yellowcake, only that they “sought” the mineral. This was 100% true as confirmed by both the British and Niger governments. If Wilson had actually done what his mission defined instead of soaking up rays around the hotel pool, drinking cocktails, and chatting with people who supposedly dealt in the uranium business, he’d have looked more credible.

      More from Christopher Hitchens:

      Joseph Wilson went to Niger in 2002 to investigate whether or not the country had renewed its uranium-based relationship with Iraq, spent a few days (by his own account) sipping mint tea with officials of that country who were (by his wife’s account) already friendly to him, and came back with the news that all was above-board. Again to repeat myself, this must mean either that A) he did not know that Zahawie had come calling or B) that he did know but didn’t think it worth mentioning that one of Saddam’s point men on nukes had been in town. In neither case, it seems to me, should he be trusted with another mission that requires any sort of curiosity.

      Wilson has had to alter his story so many times—he first denied that the CIA had anything to do with selecting him for the Niger mission and later claimed that he had exposed a forgery that wasn’t disclosed until after he returned—that the mind reels at having to reread his conceited book. However, dear reader, on your behalf I was prepared to do it. The closest Wilson ever comes to a notional Iraq-Niger contact is at second hand, when one of his government sources tells of an approach, through a Niger businessman, to meet an Iraqi official at a conference of the Organization of African Unity in Algiers in 1999. Looking back on this event, his source now thinks that he recognizes the Iraqi as Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf. Wilson likes this story enough to tell it twice (on Pages 28 and 424 of his book). And it’s a jolly good story, too, since Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf is more widely known as “Baghdad Bob,” the information minister who furnished some low comic relief during the last days of the regime in 2003. Relieved laughter all around. Nothing to worry about after all. As Wilson asks with triumphant sarcasm: “Was that the smoking gun that could supposedly have become a mushroom cloud?”
      http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=4763

      You said:

      ……But it knew Planet B had the unobtanium/kryptonite/antimatter long before Woe Jilson was ever sent there. Does the presence of the weapons ingredients prove that Woe Jilson was wrong/lying?

      Miles, you crack me up. Aside from the yellowcake at Tawaitha, there was a lot more heretofore undiscovered material present. That is certainly a big deal. Aside from that, the main problem is that the WMD already discovered before the invasion was not very publicized. Big. Mistake. People in general have a very short attention span, with a memory to match. The MSM downplayed everything leading up to and after the invasion. It’s no wonder many people got the impression that “Woe Jilson” (LOL!) somehow lent plausibility to the “Bush Lied, People Died” shit.

      You said:

      No. Everyone knew they already had it, and they also knew they would have found it when they went in. The really big story would have been if it wasn’t there. (Yes, I know, some of the stuff in Iraq disappeared – that’s a big deal). In this case, it was still there, so I think its a non-story in relation to the Joe Wilson saga. That’s why I think you should take down the statement in parentheses. I don’t see any way you can say reference Joe Wilson as a tagline for that particular story.

      The big story in the Wilson saga is how he lied about Iraq’s intent and how he implied that WMD was a Red Herring. Which, roughly coincides with the tag “the yellowcake that Joe Wilson claimed Saddam never had). But, I have a suggestion. How’s this?: “The kind of yellowcake Joe Wilson claimed Iraq never sought from Niger”.

      SFC MAC
5. 

   Miles

   12/08/2010 at 00:03

   I only have time for a quick response today…

   -I completely agree that Iraq went to Niger in search of uranium ore, a violation of UN sanctions.

   >>>”A NATO investigation traced the document to two employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who had already sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, and added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real document went to Washington through one conduit, and the fake went via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. It turns out, a phony paper alleging a deal was used to discredit a genuine document suggesting a connection.” …Ironically, the faked document reflected the actual covert activity between Iraq and Niger which was happening regardless…So whether or not the Iraq/Niger yellowcake deal actually transpired after the two attempts in 1999 and 2001, is moot.

   -I’m not convinced that Hitchens is saying that the genuine documents say that same thing as the fake documents. Specifically, do the genuine documents allege a transaction, or just a meeting? If he is saying they allege a transaction, that’s a rather serious claim and we should be able to find out more details about the genuine docs, no?

   The following is really the crux of the argument:

   -I don’t think its moot because you’re saying that the presence of ANY yellowcake in Iraq proves Joe Wilson wrong. If yellowcake of the 1999-2002 vintage is to be found in Iraq, he’s definitely wrong. Skewer him and roast him over the firepit. If there’s no yellowcake from that era, then all we have to argue about is whether he claimed that Iraq never SOUGHT the stuff (I’ll address that below). However, since I don’t think you’re claiming that there was 1999-2002 Niger yellowcake in Iraq, the article about yellowcake being moved to Canada has nothing to do whatsoever with Joe Wilson. Whether he was wrong or right about Iraqi officials seeking uranium in Niger (I convinced they did), and whether he claimed that they did not seek it, the news article you cited has no relevance to the Wilson saga.

   I would like to give a full explain as to why I think that Wilson is not claiming that Iraqi officials never sought a deal, but I don’t have time tonight, and I think it would detract from the point I’m trying to make. I will give my summary though – he disagreed with using the Niger evidence to reach the conclusion that Iraq was an imminent threat given that they did not actual obtain any yellowcake. Furthermore, by only saying that they sought the material, he implied to that it was possible that they may have obtained some, thereby ignoring Wilson’s conclusion that they did not get any from Niger. The full story should have been given to the American people (and in particular the Congress), allowing them to make up their own minds.

   I’ve read that neither Bush nor Cheney ever read Wilson’s memo, so I’m not faulting Bush directly. This is from Tenet’s book: “This unremarkable report was disseminated, but because it produced no solid answers, there wasn’t any urgency to brief its results to senior officials such as the vice president … As far as we could tell, the Wilson summary was never delivered to Cheney. In fact, I have no recollection myself of hearing about Wilson’s trip at the time.” The criticism from the left is that the intelligence agencies were under pressure to produce results that the administration wanted (namely, show that Iraq was doing bad things, the worse they are-the better for the case for war) If they’re building a major point of the case for war on the idea that Iraq might eventually have nukes, wouldn’t it be very useful information to tell the president that they believe that one source of yellowcake was ruled out? If Wilson had found some evidence or even had an inkling that Iraq might have obtained some yellowcake, or had written in his report that he didn’t trust what was being said by a particular official, or had any other inkling that something funny was going on, that report would have been rushed to Cheney’s office. Granted, there were probably 1000 other reports also saying “no, we didn’t find any evidence here” – and that’s why the higher ups never read them. But there are a limited number of places to get Uranium in the world – four countries in Africa, Australia, Canada, the US, Kazhakstan, Mongolia, Chile, and a few central european countries. If one of those places had been ruled out, that should be news to someone who’s interested – if only to know how close Saddam is to building a bomb.

   I understand that you can’t assume that because they didn’t get yellowcake from Niger, they’re not able to get it anywhere. If they’re pursuing it, they might eventually get it. Maybe they already have and we don’t know about it. But I think its important to give the public as much of a picture as reasonable, and the CIA should have let the president know that a) they’ve confirmed that Iraq sought uranium and b) that they didn’t obtain the uranium they sought. The president should have been told that, and then he should have taken into account that the chances were small (or smaller) that Iraq had obtained new uranium from Niger when deciding what to put in his speech.

   Wilson himself said that the Nigerian official he spoke with thought that the Iraqis were there to do business in uranium:

   “An intermediary came to this official, and said, “I want you to meet with these guys. They’re interested in talking about expanding commercial relations.” The person who talked to me said, “Red flags went up immediately, I thought of U.N. Security Council sanctions, I thought of all sorts of other reasons why we didn’t want to have any meeting. I declined the meeting”, and this was out of the country, on the margins of an OIC meeting. So it was a meeting that did not take place. And at one point during the conversation, this official kind of looked up in the sky and plumbing his conscience, looked back and said, “You know, maybe they might have wanted to talk about uranium.” – Meet the Press 10/5/03

   I don’t think this is Wilson saying that he didn’t know for sure if they Iraqis were seeking uranium. I think he’s saying, “Yes, this offical knows what was going on, and he didn’t hide it from me. The guy is refraining from accusing Iraq of seeking illegal goods, but he’s not trying to say there were there to buy cookies.”

   I’m getting off track here, I really just wanted to address whether your article was relevant to the Wilson saga.

   Two things in closing:
   The straw man accusation is very relevant. “No weapons in Iraq” is a gross oversimplification. A more accurate slogan would be “Not enough of a threat from Iraq to justify going to war.” I’m not saying I agree that the war was a bad idea, but you have to do more than show that there were WMD in Iraq to refute the position of the left. The intention of the list I made in the last post is to point out that everyone except the most looney knew that there were chemical, biological, and nuclear programs in Iraq. The difference between the right and the left was whether one believes that Iraq actually has weapons that could hurt a lot of people at once, whether Saddam would eventually give those weapons to terrorists, and whether those weapons could reasonable be smuggled to a place where they could be used against a large population. (Please don’t address those questions now, I see your list above).

   Saying “There were a bunch of weapons in Iraq, so you’re wrong because you said ‘No weapons in Iraq'” is similar to me saying “Obama supported a position the unions didn’t like, so you were wrong when you said he’s a commie.”

   For now, I’d like to avoid discussion of what would constitute enough of a threat to justify the war. At the moment, all I’m really looking for is an explanation of what how the yellowcake that was brought to Canada is relevant to the Joe Wilson thing, or an admission that it isn’t, and a removal of the comment.

   >>If you want to argue semantics, I can change the statement in parantheses to “the yellowcake that Joe Wilson claimed was never part of the Iraqi threat.”

   He never said that there was no yellowcake in Iraq. In fact, as the deputy ambassador in Baghdad in 1991, I’m sure he heard that the UN found a bunch of the stuff there after the war. He said that he strongly believes that Niger did not sell any to Iraq in 1999-2001. You argue that he said that Iraqi officials never sought yellowcake from Niger. Even if I take that to be true, the shipment to Canada still has nothing to do with Wilson since I think we both agree that it was in Iraq in 1991.

   This is exhausting…maybe we should do this by email?

   P.S. How do you make that fancy indent for quotes?
   P.P.S. The point of all this is to see if I can get you to make a more balanced argument, where you don’t just see the evidence that supports your point of view and present that to your readers, but read between the lines, look at the argument against what you believe, and make an honest effort to refute that. Attacking the character of authors you disagree with is not a tactic that proves your point. Digging up evidence of why the argument against you doesn’t hold water, and making sure that that evidence is solid, is a good tactic. I question the things I read whether they come from the right or the left. This article presents an argument that implies a truth that’s pretty far from what I think is accurate. I’m willing to read through all of it, but if I’m reading an article from 2003 and I have to stop at every point and look up whether this claim or that has already been disproven in the time since(or claim to have been disproven), I’ll never get through it all. I’ve read a number of the articles you’ve referenced, and in some, some of the claims have been strongly refuted.

   I’m not under the fantasy that I’ll change your mind , but maybe I can get you to be a little more convincing to people who read your blog with a degree of skepticism.
   1. 

      sfcmac

      12/08/2010 at 11:20

      Miles,
      You said:

      “I’m not convinced that Hitchens is saying that the genuine documents say that same thing as the fake documents. Specifically, do the genuine documents allege a transaction, or just a meeting? If he is saying they allege a transaction, that’s a rather serious claim and we should be able to find out more details about the genuine docs, no?”

      From the reports, the genuine document reflects the 1999 meeting between Niger and the Iraqi delegation. The forgery claimed an agreement for a sale took place. Since Niger’s main export to Iraq was uranium, what do you think they discussed? That in itself is serious enough. To trivialize that is foolish.

      Some interesting articles:

      Iraqi nuke hawk went to Niger
      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/956639/posts

      Saddam sent trade mission to Niger
      http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200307/ai_n9293001/

      You said:

      I don’t think its moot because you’re saying that the presence of ANY yellowcake in Iraq proves Joe Wilson wrong. If yellowcake of the 1999-2002 vintage is to be found in Iraq, he’s definitely wrong. Skewer him and roast him over the firepit. If there’s no yellowcake from that era, then all we have to argue about is whether he claimed that Iraq never SOUGHT the stuff (I’ll address that below). However, since I don’t think you’re claiming that there was 1999-2002 Niger yellowcake in Iraq, the article about yellowcake being moved to Canada has nothing to do whatsoever with Joe Wilson. Whether he was wrong or right about Iraqi officials seeking uranium in Niger (I convinced they did), and whether he claimed that they did not seek it, the news article you cited has no relevance to the Wilson saga.

      Wilson was dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa. Wilson’s argument was that Niger and Iraq never met to discuss another deal on uranium. He lied was wrong. Ibrahim Assane Mayaki confirmed as such. Joe didn’t work very hard to uncover the truth while in Niger. He spent a lot of time hobnobbing instead of fact-finding. The 9-11 Commission and the Senate Select Intelligence Committee found that the CIA report on Wilson’s mission to Niger differed substantially from his testimony to the 9-11 Commission. Wilson admitted to the 9-11 Committee that he “may have exaggerated”. The 9-11 Committee found conclusively that Iraq was attempting to procure enriched (yellowcake) uranium in Africa.
      Which is what Wilson denied.

      More:
      http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1105/boot110305.php3
      http://www.jewishworldreview.com/1105/boot110305.php3
      http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/6/1/100750.shtml

      For that, he should be skewered and roasted.

      You said:

      I would like to give a full explain as to why I think that Wilson is not claiming that Iraqi officials never sought a deal, but I don’t have time tonight, and I think it would detract from the point I’m trying to make. I will give my summary though – he disagreed with using the Niger evidence to reach the conclusion that Iraq was an imminent threat given that they did not actual obtain any yellowcake. Furthermore, by only saying that they sought the material, he implied to that it was possible that they may have obtained some, thereby ignoring Wilson’s conclusion that they did not get any from Niger. The full story should have been given to the American people (and in particular the Congress), allowing them to make up their own minds.

      Wilson’s claim can probably be explained by his anti-war stance and his and Valerie Plame’s dislike for George Bush; but that’s another story.
      The full story of Iraq’s duplicity, threat, and WMD efforts have been published ad nauseaum. The long list of links at the bottom of the post are just a sample of what’s out there in open source material. My gawd, if anyone reads those and concludes that invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein was “unnecessary” they’ve got a pretty sophisticated set of cerebral blinders.

      You said:

      But there are a limited number of places to get Uranium in the world – four countries in Africa, Australia, Canada, the US, Kazhakstan, Mongolia, Chile, and a few central european countries. If one of those places had been ruled out, that should be news to someone who’s interested – if only to know how close Saddam is to building a bomb.

      Niger wasn’t the only place he went shopping.
      http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,64007,00.html
      http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/10/covering_up_iraqs_quest_for_ur.html

      Just a reminder. These are the “16 words”:

      The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

      What about that statement is false?

      You said:

      The straw man accusation is very relevant. “No weapons in Iraq” is a gross oversimplification. A more accurate slogan would be “Not enough of a threat from Iraq to justify going to war.” I’m not saying I agree that the war was a bad idea, but you have to do more than show that there were WMD in Iraq to refute the position of the left. The intention of the list I made in the last post is to point out that everyone except the most looney knew that there were chemical, biological, and nuclear programs in Iraq. The difference between the right and the left was whether one believes that Iraq actually has weapons that could hurt a lot of people at once, whether Saddam would eventually give those weapons to terrorists, and whether those weapons could reasonable be smuggled to a place where they could be used against a large population. (Please don’t address those questions now, I see your list above).

      Again, what strawman??? The very actions and behavior of that unstable megalomanic should have been a clue to go all the way to Baghdad the first time I was there in Desert Storm.
      We invaded Afghanistan first, which is a point that often gets lost in the conversation. Iraq was what I refer to as a “peripheral threat”; one of those dangerous countries that would be ill-advised to ignore. Just on a strategic note: To limit this war to just Afghanistan, would be a mistake. It’s surrounded by Islamic extremist cesspools that funnel terrorists across borders.

      You said:

      At the moment, all I’m really looking for is an explanation of what how the yellowcake that was brought to Canada is relevant to the Joe Wilson thing, or an admission that it isn’t, and a removal of the comment.

      It’s relevant because the whole “Bush Lied, People Died” mantra is tied to stunts like the one pulled by Joe Wilson and the Left’s fatuous dismissal of the existence of WMDs in Iraq.

      You said,

      This is exhausting…maybe we should do this by email?

      Absolutely. I have your email, and I can send you a message. We can pick up there, where we left off here, if you’d like.

      You said:

      How do you make that fancy indent for quotes?

      There’s a function on my edit mode that enables comments to be placed in block quotes.
      You might try entering this code for your quote and see if it works:

      <blockquote>your quote here</blockquote>

      You said:

      He said that he strongly believes that Niger did not sell any to Iraq in 1999-2001.

      Joe Wilson denied that Iraq and Niger discussed the sale/purchase of uranium 1999-2001.

      You said:

      The point of all this is to see if I can get you to make a more balanced argument, where you don’t just see the evidence that supports your point of view and present that to your readers, but read between the lines, look at the argument against what you believe, and make an honest effort to refute that.

      My experiences as a Soldier and intelligence analyst gave me pretty good evidence to support my views. Since the war began, the MSM has inundated its reporting with points of view that support the opposition to not just Iraq and Afghanistan, but take on the role of Dhimmi apologist.
      I’ve seen both sides of the arguement, and I believe wholeheartedly that we would have to deal with Iraq in a forceful military manner, sooner rather than later. Had we not invaded, Iraq would still be a threat and would have most certainly produced more WMD.

      You said:

      Attacking the character of authors you disagree with is not a tactic that proves your point. Digging up evidence of why the argument against you doesn’t hold water, and making sure that that evidence is solid, is a good tactic. I question the things I read whether they come from the right or the left. This article presents an argument that implies a truth that’s pretty far from what I think is accurate. I’m willing to read through all of it, but if I’m reading an article from 2003 and I have to stop at every point and look up whether this claim or that has already been disproven in the time since(or claim to have been disproven), I’ll never get through it all. I’ve read a number of the articles you’ve referenced, and in some, some of the claims have been strongly refuted.

      The character of authors who write requisite leftwing rants against the war has a good deal of influence on what they write. If the byline is Paul Krugman, Frank Rich, Andrew Sullivan, Glenn Greenwald, Alexander Cockburn, Dave Weigel, Maureen Dowd, Spencer Ackerman, or Michael Tomasky, you can rely on a column chock full of “a truth that’s pretty far from accurate”.

      These are indisputable facts: Saddam Hussein had stockpiled WMDs and used them in the past. He continued to violate the U.N. Resolutions by seeking and developing WMD, and hiding what he did. He communicated with and supported terrorists. He (along with other ME counties) was a viable threat to coalition forces in the region.

      None of that has ever been “strongly refuted” in a truthful manner. The invasion of Iraq didn’t just hinge on the controversy over Iraq and Niger’s discussion of another uranium deal; it was an accumulation of 12 years of belligerent defiance and continued WMD development.

      You said:

      I’m not under the fantasy that I’ll change your mind , but maybe I can get you to be a little more convincing to people who read your blog with a degree of skepticism.

      You’d think with all of the evidence provided, skepticism would be the least of concerns. Of course there are skeptics who doubt that Islamic Middle Eastern terrorists could have brought down the World Trade Center, crashed into the Pentagon, or caused the passengers of a plane to fight back over a field in Pennsylvania.

      Be that as it may, I look forward to your next repsonse.

      SFC MAC
6. 

   Miles

   10/08/2010 at 18:11

   SFC MAC:

   You said: “5) Last major stockpile from Saddam’s nuclear efforts (the yellowcake that Joe Wilson claimed Saddam never had) arrives in Canada:”

   Since Joe Wilson claimed that Iraq did not receive yellowcake from Niger in the late 90’s, rather than that there was no yellowcake in Iraq, this would indicate that THIS PARTICULAR BATCH OF YELLOWCAKE proves that Joe Wilson was wrong.

   >>>”Now, the mission for Joe Wilson in 2002, was to find out if Saddam was still trying to purchase uranium. His contention was that Saddam was not, which we know to be untrue.”

   You’ve got it wrong – he said that he went to Niger to verify if a particular of a memorandum of sale between Iraq and Niger was accurate. He found it to be false, and the particular document is now believed to be a forgery. However, it is generally agreed that Iraqi officials travelled to Iraq in an attempt to obtain yellowcake (which they did not get as far as we know).

   I’ll admit that I was under the impression that Wilson’s claim was that Iraqi officials never actually sought yellowcake from Niger. I think I assumed this because he vehemently rebutted Bush’s 2003 state of the union address line which stated that Iraq recently sought significant quantities of yellowcake uranium from Niger. However, I never actually read his op-ed.

   In short, both Bush and Wilson were right. Iraq did seek it (Bush’s claim), but they didn’t get what they sought (Wilson’s claim). Both are guilty of failing to give the full picture (Bush should have acknowledged that as far as we know, they did not obtain any new product – yet. Wilson should have mentioned that Bush’s claim that Iraq did seek yellowcake was accurate.)

   I’m going to summarize the actual op-ed here (link: http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html):

   “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.”

   So he’s going there to find out if a deal was actually reached.

   “It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.”

   Regardless of whether you believe his assertion, I think we can both agree that he was there to determine an actual transaction took place (did Iraq pay or barter for yellowcake?). He does not dispute whether Iraqis traveled to Niger, or whether they were hoping to obtain yellowcake.

   If any yellowcake was shipped from Niger to Iraq in the years between say 1996 and 2003, I would say that your claim in parentheses is accurate. Your evidence does not support any sale during this time frame, but you still skewer Joe Wilson by implying that the yellowcake that was shipped to Canada is evidence that he was wrong/lying. This is far worse than any omission that Bush or Wilson made.

   Therefore, I think that you should change your post (if you can) to say “5) Last major stockpile from Saddam’s nuclear efforts arrives in Canada:” because this yellowcake has nothing to do with anything Joe Wilson ever said.

   >>>That yellowcake supply, along with the equipment, labs, and facilities he had, were going to be used to jump start his efforts. ACCURATE
   >>>Now, the mission for Joe Wilson in 2002, was to find out if Saddam was still trying to purchase uranium. INACCURATE
   >>>His contention was that Saddam was not, which we know to be untrue. There was clear evidence that in spite of the U.N. resolutions, Saddam Hussein was still developing his WMD program and trying to purchase uranium from Niger to add to his stockpile. ACCURATE

   Basically, in order for me to consider the above settled, you either have to remove that line from the text, admit that Joe Wilson’s claims are accurate, or convince me that yellowcake was shipped to Iraq from Niger between 1996 and 2003. You could also convince me that Joe Wilson’s argument rests on the notion that Iraq never SOUGHT yellowcake from Niger during the period in question. Please do not try to substitute claims that Joe Wilson made by claims from the craziest person you can find on the left. Its easy to debunk your opponents claim if you say that its equivalent to the argument from the craziest person you can find on their side of you…which brings me to the following:

   Okay, I’m going to address other things you said, but please address what I said above first.

   >>>The anti-war mantra was always that “Saddam never had WMD and that none were ever found”.

   You’re giving a textbook example of a straw-man argument. Anyone who has done any due diligence (or just listened to news) on the pro-war or anti-war sides knows that there are numerous examples of Saddam possessing and using chemical weapons. Some know about biological weapons. I think that there’s a lot of people who are misinformed about the nuclear issue on both sides.

   I think we can certainly agree on the following (all of this comes from Wikipedia):

   Chemical:
   -The most well known example is the use of chemical weapons in Halabja (3/16/88). There was also the al Anfal campaign (1986-1989).
   -“German firms such as Karl Kobe helped build Iraqi chemical weapons facilities such as laboratories, bunkers, an administrative building, and first production buildings in the early 1980s under the cover of a pesticide plant. Other German firms sent 1,027 tons of precursors of mustard gas, sarin, tabun, and tear gasses in all. This work allowed Iraq to produce 150 tons of mustard agent and 60 tons of Tabun in 1983 and 1984 respectively, continuing throughout the decade.”

   Biological:
   -Only came to light after Gulf War I.
   -Iraq officially acknoledged that research had be done into anthrax, botulism, and gas gangrene. -The Al Hakum facility began mass production of weapons-grade anthrax in 1989, eventually producing 8,000 liters or more.
   -The Iraqi government had weaponized 6,000 liters of anthrax spores and 12,000 liters of botulinum toxin in aerial bombs, rockets, and missile warheads before the outbreak of war in 1991.These bio-weapons were deployed but never used.”
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_biological_weapons_program#Post-war_inspections

   Nuclear:
   –August 17 1959 USSR and Iraq wrote an agreement about building an atomic power station.
   -1968 – a Soviet supplied IRT-2000 research reactor together with a number of other facilities that could be used for radioisotope production was built close to Baghdad.
   -1975 – Saddam Hussein arrived in Moscow in April. He asked about building an advanced model of an atomic power station. Moscow would approve, but only if the station was regulated by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Iraq refused.
   -After 6 months Paris agreed to sell 72 kg of 93% Uranium and built the atomic power station without International Atomic Energy Agency control at a price of $3 billion.
   -France built Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor in the late 1970s.
   -Israel claimed that Iraq was getting close to building nuclear weapons, and successfully destroyed the reactors in 1981. Later, a French company built a turnkey factory which helped make nuclear fuel.
   -Italy gave Iraq plutonium extraction facilities that advanced Iraq’s nuclear weapon program.
   -Between 1979 and 1982 Italy gave depleted, natural, and low-enriched uranium.
   -Swiss companies aided in Iraq’s nuclear weapons development in the form of specialized presses, milling machines, grinding machines, electrical discharge machines, and equipment for processing uranium to nuclear weapon grade.
   -Brazil secretly aided the Iraqi nuclear weapon program by supplying natural uranium dioxide between 1981 and 1982 without notifying the IAEA.
   -The United States exported over $500 million of dual use exports to Iraq that were approved by the Commerce department. Among them were advanced computers, some of which were used in Iraq’s nuclear program.
   -In March 1990, a case of nuclear triggers bound for Iraq, were seized at Heathrow Airport.
   -Many other countries contributed as well; since Iraq’s nuclear program in the early 1980s was officially viewed internationally as for power production, not weapons, there were no UN prohibitions against it.
   -An Austrian company gave Iraq calutrons for enriching uranium.
   -Portugal provided yellowcake between 1980 and 1982.
   -Niger provided yellowcake in 1981.

   This is a summary of claims from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction). The article is not noted as one that is under factual dispute at the time that I lifted these snippets.

   There are probably many more items that I’ve left out, but the point that I want to make is that your average “anti-war organic red diaper babies” acknowledges these as facts. The things that are in dispute are generally those from the time period of 1991-2003. Everyone knows Saddam was going crazy with nuclear, chemical and biological weapons pre-Gulf War. I see from your summaries that you have some items that you claim show that large amounts of chemical weapons that Iraq posessed right up to the 2003 invasion, hidden from UN inspectors. This is serious news if its true, and would really change how I feel about how the media has reported on the WMD issue. If there were in fact massive amounts of material ready to be deployed on the battlefield (or given to terrorists), that might change my view about the war.

   However, I haven’t taken an in-depth look at it yet. Why? the claim that caught my eye first (a claim Joe Wilson lied) seems to be misrepresented. I’m drawn to read this post because I may have been lied to about this war. However, if you lie or misrepresent evidence to me, your reader, that makes it hard to trust your judgement about the news your presenting.

   They may have a bumper sticker that says something like “no weapons in Iraq” or “Bush Lied, People Died”, etc. I think we both know that bumper stickers and short slogans like that intentionally simplify the truth to the point at which the claims they make are inaccurate and easily rebutted. If some idiot (or large number of idiots) out there is making his assessments of US foreign policy based on bumper stickers, we probably need to teach them to read a little. Unfortunately, there are numerous people like this. If one of those people reads your item #5 saying that the yellowcake that Joe Wilson said Iraq did not receive from Niger just got sent to Canada, they’ll probably take it at face value and not read the actual story it comes from which clearly says that the yellowcake in question came from before 1991.

   Okay, this got long. I apologize if there are typos in here, I don’t have time to edit the whole thing…I’m done.
   1. 

      sfcmac

      11/08/2010 at 13:30

      Miles,
      Agreed: Joe Wilson’s mission was to research the memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake by Niger to Iraq in the late 1990’s. Keep in mind that Iraq had indeed purchased uranium from Niger before, and was actively seeking to do so again.
      Why do you think Saddam’s representative spoke with Niger officials? It’s pretty obvious.

      As to the forged document, here’s another Hitchens article discussing that:
      http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/

      According initial investigative reports, the United States and Britain “received the documents from the intelligence agency of an unnamed third country”. As stated in the Hitchens article, Italian intelligence noted the Zahawie trip from Rome and alerted French intelligence. The French then tipped off the British, who sent the information to Washington. The disclosure appeared in watered-down statement (the “16 words”) in Bush’s January 2003 State of the Union address. The document in question, which was dated July 6, 2000, had Zahawie’s faked signature and diplomatic seal on an agreement for an Iraqi uranium transaction with Niger.

      As mentioned in the Hitchens article and an article in the London Times—I’m paraphrasing Hitchens—“A NATO investigation traced the document to two employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who had already sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, and added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real document went to Washington through one conduit, and the fake went via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. It turns out, a phony paper alleging a deal was used to discredit a genuine document suggesting a connection.”

      I’ve already provided a link to the Hitchens article, here’s a link to the London Times report: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article703553.ece

      Ironically, the faked document reflected the actual covert activity between Iraq and Niger which was happening regardless. It was an established fact that Iraq and Niger were still communicating over the possible sale/purchase of yellowcake as late as 2001. So whether or not the Iraq/Niger yellowcake deal actually transpired after the two attempts in 1999 and 2001, is moot. The very act of corroborating with Niger for the purpose of buying more yellowcake to add to his stockpile was a direct violation on the U.N. WMD Resolution 1441.

      You said:

      So he’s going there to find out if a deal was actually reached. “It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place.”

      Should we have waited until it did? The real—not faked—document indicated that they were working on it.

      You said:

      “You’re giving a textbook example of a straw-man argument. Anyone who has done any due diligence (or just listened to news) on the pro-war or anti-war sides knows that there are numerous examples of Saddam possessing and using chemical weapons….”

      The “strawman” accusation is kinda silly, given the generous amount of vitriol on the part of the anti-war left, including lack of “due diligence”. “No WMD ever found”, is the standard repertoire.
      Leftie commentators like Cockburn are just as apt to ignore the justification for invading Iraq, as they are “acknowleging” the facts in the wikipedia post. Cognitive dissonance can be quite a challenge.
      I stand by my “anti-war organic red diaper babies” statement.

      Aside from the information discussed in the wikipedia post, our own allies, in conjunction with the Oil for Food farce, enabled Saddam Hussein to gain back the WMD ground he lost after the first Gulf War.

      Miles, in case you haven’t noticed, the IAEA and the ISG are a pathetic joke. They got jerked around by the nose for so long by Saddam Hussein, there was no way to keep track of all the materials, equipment, and weapons he hid. Suffice it to say that the IAEA sleuths couldn’t find their own rear ends with two hands, a map, and a compass. This is why I pointed to articles of material and weapons that escaped the scrutiny of the U.N. and weren’t discovered until after the invasion in 2003.
      Here’s one:

      The 500 munitions discovered throughout Iraq since 2003 and discussed in a National Ground Intelligence Center report meet the criteria of weapons of mass destruction, the center’s commander said here today.

      “These are chemical weapons as defined under the Chemical Weapons Convention, and yes … they do constitute weapons of mass destruction,” Army Col. John Chu told the House Armed Services Committee.

      The Chemical Weapons Convention is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons. It was signed in 1993 and entered into force in 1997.

      The munitions found contain sarin and mustard gases, Army Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, said. Sarin attacks the neurological system and is potentially lethal.

      “Mustard is a blister agent (that) actually produces burning of any area (where) an individual may come in contact with the agent,” he said. It also is potentially fatal if it gets into a person’s lungs.

      ……Though about 500 chemical weapons – the exact number has not been released publicly – have been found, Maples said he doesn’t believe Iraq is a “WMD-free zone.”

      “I do believe the former regime did a very poor job of accountability of munitions, and certainly did not document the destruction of munitions,” he said. “The recovery program goes on, and I do not believe we have found all the weapons.”

      The Defense Intelligence Agency director said locating and disposing of chemical weapons in Iraq is one of the most important tasks servicemembers in the country perform.

      Maples added searches are ongoing for chemical weapons beyond those being conducted solely for force protection.

      There has been a call for a complete declassification of the National Ground Intelligence Center’s report on WMD in Iraq. Maples said he believes the director of national intelligence is still considering this option, and has asked Maples to look into producing an unclassified paper addressing the subject matter in the center’s report.
      http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

      There’s no telling exactly when he obtained many of those materials. Some of them came in the same way they were looted out; from Syria.

      You said:

      “This is serious news if its true, and would really change how I feel about how the media has reported on the WMD issue. If there were in fact massive amounts of material ready to be deployed on the battlefield (or given to terrorists), that might change my view about the war.”

      Pardon me, but had you engaged in “due dilligence”, your views would have already changed.

      Now, back to Joe Wilson: His premise of “What I Didn’t Find in Africa”, contained claims that were later proved false:

      “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.”

      What he’s saying is that he didn’t believe Iraq was trying to purchase more uranium from Africa. Again: Overtures were made to Niger regarding yellowcake. Wilson went to Niger with an agenda and returned with a narrative that fit the agenda. The Niger officials did not divulge the entire truth and if anyone thinks so, I have a large, beautiful bridge in Brooklyn for sale. Wilson had zero credibility in West Africa. His NYT OpEd piece also included the hackneyed accusations that the “Bush administration manipulated intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s weapons programs to justify an invasion of Iraq”, and “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”. Neither accusation was true. He opposed the war from the get go and made no bones about it. He prefered “a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force”, which “was preferable to an invasion”. We did that for 12 years, with little success. That right there should tell you all about Joe’s mindset. Wilson denied in the face of overwhelming evidence, that Saddam had continued to seek uranium and other WMD materials from outside Iraq.

      He contended that even though he “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”, he questioned if “these dangers the same ones the administration told us about? We have to find out.”

      Well, I’d say with all the WMD found after the invasion coupled with the highly suspicous looting and absconding of WMDs out of Iraq and into Syria, Joe has his answer. If he’s still not convinced, he can request to see the 48,000 boxes of documents and over 500 hours of videotapes we found:

      Audiotapes of Saddam Hussein and his aides underscore the Bush administration’s argument that Baghdad was determined to rebuild its arsenal of weapons of mass destruction once the international community had tired of inspections and left the Iraqi dictator alone. In addition to the captured tapes, U.S. officials are analyzing thousands of pages of newly translated Iraqi documents that tell of Saddam seeking uranium from Africa in the mid-1990s.

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060313-123146-7380r.htm

      Do yourself a favor, and take an in-depth look.

      You said:

      Joe Wilson (a claim Joe Wilson lied) seems to be misrepresented. I’m drawn to read this post because I may have been lied to about this war. However, if you lie or misrepresent evidence to me, your reader, that makes it hard to trust your judgement about the news your presenting.

      Joe Wilson misrepresented the facts through purposeful omission. That’s a polite way to say he lied. As a former Soldier/intelligence analyst/counter terrorist specialist/Iraq War vet, I am well aware of the seriousness of going to war. I am also acutely aware of the consequences of not taking action and doing so when the circumstances warrant. Iraq, like every other Islamic nation-state in the Middle East, is part and parcel of the threat to Western civilization. Excuse me, was a threat. Now the focus has shifted to finishing the job in Afghanistan, which the Left doesn’t think is worth it, either.

      If you want to argue semantics, I can change the statement in parantheses to “the yellowcake that Joe Wilson claimed was never part of the Iraqi threat.”

      SFC MAC
7. 

   Miles

   09/08/2010 at 14:07

   Again, you’re getting distracted:

   Did the yellowcake that was transported from Iraq to Canada in 2008 originate from a deal between Iraq and Niger that could have formed the supporting evidence for Bush’s claim in the 2003 State of the Union Address?

   I say it was not because the yellowcake had been there since before 1991. Nobody is claiming otherwise.

   Therefore, claiming that this is the yellowcake the Joe Wilson said Saddam never had is wrong.

   >>>”The former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, told Joe Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in “expanding commercial relations” for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake. Wilson ignored that information.”

   You’ve caused me to reevaluate the evidence about whether Joe Wilson was right, and I’m thinking that you’re probably right about this issue, that Iraq did indeed seek “significant quantities” of yellowcake from Niger “recently” (as of 2003). However, as far as I know, nobody (except you) has claimed that any yellowcake ever made it to Iraq after 1991.

   >>>I think we can agree the “Wilson thing” is pretty much cleared up.

   Not yet
   1. 

      sfcmac

      10/08/2010 at 08:58

      Miles,

      I am far from ‘distracted’. The anti-war mantra was always that “Saddam never had WMD and that none were ever found”. Both of those assertions are patently false. The stockpile of 500 tons of yellowcake that was found in 1992 by the IAEA, was accumulated in part, from purchases made from Niger starting in 1981, as confirmed by the Duelfer Report. Niger is saturated with uranium.

      That yellowcake supply, along with the equipment, labs, and facilities he had, were going to be used to jump start his efforts. Now, the mission for Joe Wilson in 2002, was to find out if Saddam was still trying to purchase uranium. His contention was that Saddam was not, which we know to be untrue. There was clear evidence that in spite of the U.N. resolutions, Saddam Hussein was still developing his WMD program and trying to purchase uranium from Niger to add to his stockpile.

      I think that clears it up.

      SFC MAC
8. 

   Miles

   06/08/2010 at 15:56

   SFC Mac,

   You’re trying to talk about the larger issues when I’m just concerned about one little thing you wrote:

   “Last major stockpile from Saddam’s nuclear efforts (the yellowcake that Joe Wilson claimed Saddam never had) arrives in Canada:”

   Yes, Saddam had yellowcake, probably obtained from Niger in 1981 according to the Hitchen article.
   Yes, Saddam did want a nuke and was willing to take risks to get it.

   No, US/British/etc. forces have never found any yellowcake from any source that was obtained after 1991. Your article about the mass shipment to Canada only refers to that obtained prior to 1991, with seals unbroken since 1991.

   While Joe Wilson might have been wrong about the nature of the contact between Iraq and Niger, and Bush’s 16 words may have been accurate, the claim “the yellowcake that Joe Wilson claimed Saddam never had arrives in Canada.” is wrong, because that yellowcake did not come from a deal between Niger and Iraq that could have been called “recent” in Jan. 2003.

   P.S.

   I don’t know anything about Alexander Cockburn, but regardless its a good article…why diss it or the author? You seem to gravitate toward anti-liberal views, but that article is condemning the idea that sanctions can work (sanctions being a major workhorse of liberal foreign policy).

   Once we clear up the Joe Wilson thing, we can continue the discussion, but I’m trying to not get bogged down in the rest just yet given how complicated the whole thing is.
   1. 

      sfcmac

      06/08/2010 at 21:53

      Miles,

      The 550 metric tons of “yellowcake” was still accessable to Saddam Hussein, as was the rest of the material and equipment at the Tuwaitha nuclear complex. It should not have been. He could have accessed it anytime he pleased. Given the fact that he thumbed his nose at the U.N. for 12 years, I don’t think the IAEA’s displeasure with removing the seals would have been very intimidating. The material wasn’t “sealed” very well, given the ease with which the looters absconded with some of the containers. American forces also found weapons-grade plutonium hidden beneath the facility at Tuwaitha, as well as shipping containers full of lab equipment at a chemical plant in Karbala. There was WMD material all over Iraq and none of it was safeguarded from Saddam or anyone else.

      In addition, he had a considerable chem/bio program and was determined to continue development.
      https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html

      The former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, told Joe Wilson that in June of 1999, an Iraqi delegation expressed interest in “expanding commercial relations” for the purposes of purchasing yellowcake. Wilson ignored that information.

      I think we can agree the “Wilson thing” is pretty much cleared up.

      I know enough about the political leanings and skewed commentary of Andrew Cockburn to discard most of what he asserts. His opposition to the sanctions matches his opposition to the war, without any viable alternative to either. He blames the sanctions, which of course, had virtually no effect on Saddam’s regime, for the “society US and British armies confronted in 2003: impoverished, extremist and angry.” This doesn’t account for the poverty, extremism, and oppression in third-world Iraq, during the entire span of Saddam’s reign. Cockburn is a notorious leftwinger and former “red diaper baby”. Here’s a link to his bio/political career: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Cockburn#Themes_and_opinions

      He has brief moments of lucidity, such as acknowledging that “man-made global warming” is a hoax. But most of his dissertations are filled with the usual nihilist propagations like “Megrahi and Libya were framed for the Lockerbie Bombing”, praising the WikiLeaks publication of classified documents, and opining that those who recognize Obama’s socialism are “irrational and racist”. The facts debunk his opinions.

      As for Iraq, it’s really not that complicated. We eliminated a threat; we overthrew a dangerous WMD-weilding megalomanic who also happened to support terrorist groups.

      Having said that, here’s my standard response: Every Islamic nation-state in the Middle East (pick one) sponsors, trains, funds, breeds, and supports terrorism. As in WWII, we should have declared an all-out war instead of this piecemeal shit. We brought the hounds of hell down on Germany, Italy, and Japan. Had I the power, several countries in the Middle East, to include Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Jordon, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt, would have been leveled into parking lots on 12 September 2001. That’s how you fight a jihad.
      But, I’m a former Soldier, not a politican.

      SFC MAC
9. 

   Miles

   03/08/2010 at 20:07

   I think I need to be more consise in my objection since you don’t seem to have responded to my point:

   The yellowcake uranium you speak of was in Iraq before 1991. Therefore, it cannot be the same material that caused Joe Wilson to object to the line “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

   And yet you say “5) Last major stockpile from Saddam’s nuclear efforts (the yellowcake that Joe Wilson claimed Saddam never had) arrives in Canada:”

   You also tell me to read the articles. If there are any that support your claim that there Saddam bought, or even tried to buy yellowcake from Africa in the years that could be called “recent” in Jan. 2003, please let me know, because the one you cite says that the yellowcake he did have was already discovered by UN inspectors. It also proves that it hadn’t been touched at any point between 1991 and 2006.

   If you can’t provide evidence to assuage these objections, and don’t change your claim about Joe Wilson being wrong, that would be dishonest, no?
10. 

    Miles

    01/08/2010 at 22:32

    SFCMac,

    Glad to see you’re responding. What I take issue with is not whether or not there was yellowcake uranium in Iraq, but your assertion that “He had that material for quite a while and kept it hidden.”

    My understanding is that it was placed in barrels by UN inspectors, tagged and recorded. They never removed it from the country because it would have been a significant, expensive and dangerous operation to do so, and they figured that if they’ve recorded its presence, they’ll be able to raise hell with Saddam if it ever went missing or if the seals were broken. Touting this material as evidence of an attempt to build nuclear weapons DURING THE TIME IN QUESTION (lets say 1992-2003) is just plain wrong. Yes, he managed to get yellowcake ore sometime before 1991. My understanding is that it would take many tons of yellowcake to yield a useable amount of Uranium-235 IF he had gas centrifuges. To be specific, U235 makes up only .71% of naturally occuring uranium.

    I agree, he wanted to build a nuclear weapon, but he had to do it in secret, and using ore that was already located, recorded and sealed by UN inspectors would have been stupid, even for Saddam.

    Addressing other things you’ve said:
    You’re right that Saddam had no intention of complying with the resolutions – he would have made WMD if he could have, but he didn’t have the ability because we were preventing him from buying the things he would need. He managed to smuggle in some simple things like fermenters and such (as I learned from reading your links). It would have been difficult for him to get something like a gas centrifuge given the severe sanctions Iraq was under (again, I encourage you to read this link: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n14/andrew-cockburn/worth-it)

    Also, don’t assume that you know my politics because I’m disagreeing with what you’ve said. The spectrum of views is not black and white.
    1. 

       sfcmac

       04/08/2010 at 08:32

       Miles,

       I was out of town for a few days, thus the delayed response. Trust me, I have no problem with debate.

       Now, on to the argument.

       Saddam had previously obtained 270 tons of uranium from Niger in the 1980s. He went shopping for more in 1999 and 2001.
       http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/

       The very act of approaching Niger for this purpose was yet another violation of the U.N. resolutions.

       As for the yellowcake in Al—Tuwaitha, why would an organization tasked with curbing the ability of a WMD-producing megalomaniac, allow that material to continue to be stored right where he could access it?

       More: http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/07/about_that_500_tons_of_yellow.html

       “….would have been stupid, even for Saddam”
       Really? He wasn’t too concerned over the consequences of his belligerence, UN violations, and WMD development, right up until the day we invaded. Pretty stupid, but he did it anyway.

       The point is that much of that weapons material wasn’t discovered until after we invaded. Hence, the term “discovered” in the reports. The enriched uranium, chem, and bio weapons material in question was forbidden by U.N. resolutions. He was not supposed to posesss any of it. He hid that material in bunkers in northern Iraq. I asked Karl Rove straight out why the Bush administration didn’t shout this from the roof of the White House. My guess is that they were embarrassed over the fact that it took so long to track this stuff down and that Saddam played the U.N. fools like a fiddle the entire 12 years preceding the invasion.

       Keep in mind that our “allies”: Russia, France, and Germany, had rearmed him after the first Gulf War and he also took advantage of the Oil for Food program and for the same purpose.

       We can debate endlessly over the “time frame” and whether or not he had centrifuges, but the fact remains he should not have had them in the first place and he would have continued to develop them. Why wait until he could produce what he planned?

       Alexander Cockburn??? Please.
       Read Christopher Hitchens:
       http://www.slate.com/id/2186740/
       http://www.hoover.org/multimedia/uncommon-knowledge/27114

       His assertions are backed up by facts. Mahdi Obeidi, Saddam’s nuclear scientist personally hid centrifuge parts all over Iraq.

       http://www.mafhoum.com/press4/116P6.htm
       http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/25/sprj.irq.centrifuge/

       More on Saddam’s duplicitous WMD program:
       http://www.foia.cia.gov/duelfer/Iraqs_WMD_Vol1.pdf
       http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1067515/posts?page=276
       http://sweetness-light.com/archive/dod-report-50-trucks-carried-iraqi-wmd-to-syria

       You really need to read more about Joe Wilson’s questionable character:
       http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/pardon-my-smirk/

       A brief recap: 1.77 tons of enriched uranium discovered in 2004. He had parts for centrifuges hidden around the country. Chemical weapons were discovered in 2005. Tons of WMD equipment was smuggled out of Iraq into Syria just after the invasion. He had tons of anthrax. He supported and colluded with terrorist organizations.

       Okay, now tell me again why you think we shouldn’t have invaded Iraq.

       SFC MAC
11. 

    Miles

    31/07/2010 at 14:27

    So Karl Rove doesn’t know the appropriate usage of dual vs. duel? I find that hard to believe.

    You’re trying to point out that Iraq had WMD stockpiles, or tools and ingredients to make them, but you’re leaving out the time period. It is well documented and accepted by those across the political spectrum that Saddam had, and used WMD on the Iranians and on his own people during in the 80s and into the early 90s. The UN resolutions that came down on him were pretty strong, and he cooperated (grudingly, and not wholeheartedly) for a few years. Then, when the UN passed further sanctions against Iraq, despite his cooperation, he decided to say “screw this”. (I’m summarizing like crazy – For more info, this is an excellent article: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n14/andrew-cockburn/worth-it) He then kicked the inspectors out. Besides just wanting to show the world he was tough, there was a more calculated reason for doing it – to make Iran believe he had WMD to dissuade them from attacking. The FBI managed to get Saddam to talk to one of their operatives, and among other things:

    “”He [Saddam] told me that most of the WMD had been destroyed by the U.N. inspectors in the ’90s. And those that hadn’t been destroyed by the inspectors were unilaterally destroyed by Iraq,” Piro says.

    “So why keep the secret? Why put your nation at risk, why put your own life at risk to maintain this charade?” Pelley asks.

    “It was very important for him to project that because that was what kept him, in his mind, in power. That capability kept the Iranians away. It kept them from reinvading Iraq,” Piro says.”

    The link is here: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/24/60minutes/main3749494.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody

    The issue about whether or not there were WMD is that Bush touted the idea that Saddam was hiding WMD from the inspectors as a major rationale for going to war. There’s also the “he’s a bad guy” thing – definitely true. Then there’s the “He cooperated with terrorists, or had a hand in 9/11”, which I strongly believe is false. There are plenty of other reasons (oil, allies, etc.), but that wasn’t how he sold the war to the country, and more importantly to Congress.
    1. 

       sfcmac

       01/08/2010 at 10:25

       Miles,

       I think Karl Rove knows the difference between “duel” and “dual”. It was simply a mispelling of the word. If you think I made up that email, you are wrong. I copied and pasted as is, from my Army online email. I did not edit a thing.

       Secondly, NO ONE, not even George Bush, said that Saddam had direct ties to 9/11. What was stated and proved, is that he had ties to terrorist groups, some of whom were responsible for 9/11. In addition, he continued to develop his WMD program in direct violation of UN Resolution 1441, and hid weapons that he had WHICH WERE DISCOVERED AFTER WE INVADED, and fully intended to continue had we not stopped him. I was in Iraq when some of those weapons were discovered.
       READ THE LINKS.
       What is so difficult to understand?

       SFC MAC
12. 

    Miles

    30/07/2010 at 21:15

    I got to this page after seeing your comment on Wired’s Ethan McCord interview.

    In short, I disagree with many of your assessments in the above post, and I’d like hash out your supporting evidence with you.

    I too find it hard to believe that the Bush Administration would have hidden evidence that Saddam was trying to manufacture nuclear weapons (between 1991 and 2003 – before 1991 it was known he was pursing them), so I took a look at your supporting article.

    “Tuwaitha and an adjacent research facility were well known for decades as the centerpiece of Saddam’s nuclear efforts.

    Israeli warplanes bombed a reactor project at the site in 1981. Later, U.N. inspectors documented and safeguarded the yellowcake, which had been stored in aging drums and containers since before the 1991 Gulf War. There was no evidence of any yellowcake dating from after 1991, the official said.”

    Based on this, you imply that Joe Wilson was wrong to go after Bush for saying that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake in Niger. That seems very disingenuous, and makes me question the rest of what you’ve written (I haven’t bothered to fact check anything else yet.)

    If you wouldn’t mind, I’d like to go through the rest of the assertions you’ve made here. If I’m wrong about what I think, I’d like to know, but I think you owe it to your readers to not summarize news stories with false info.
    1. 

       sfcmac

       01/08/2010 at 10:44

       Miles,

       The evidence can be “hashed out” by simply reading the documents I provided, including the declassified NGIC report, the report of looting at Saddam’s nuke facilities, and the report of the yellow cake being transfered to Canada after the war.

       READ:

       1) Declassified NGIC report:

       http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/Iraq_WMD_Declassified.pdf

       http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

       2) 1.77 metric tons of enriched uranium:

       http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3872201.stm

       3) 1,500 gallons of chemical weapons agents:

       http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/13/AR2005081300530.html

       4) Looting of WMD facilities:

       In the weeks after Baghdad fell in April 2003, looters systematically dismantled and removed tons of machinery from Saddam Hussein’s most important weapons installations, including some with high-precision equipment capable of making parts for nuclear arms, a senior Iraqi official said this week in the government’s first extensive comments on the looting.

       http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/13/international/middleeast/13loot.html?pagewanted=1

       The UN admitted that Iraq had over six tons of anthrax, most of it weaponized, right up until the invasion.

       http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=07b_1186980879

       5) Last major stockpile from Saddam’s nuclear efforts (the yellowcake that Joe Wilson claimed Saddam never had) arrives in Canada:

       http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25546334/
       The operation was planned for than a year and took three months to execute. 3,500 barrels of yellowcake was transported by road from Baghdad, then 37 military flights to an atoll in the Indian Ocean, then carrying them aboard a U.S. ship bound for Montreal. In all, it added up to more than 500 metric tons of material from Saddam Hussein’s nuclear program.

       The Iraqi government sold the yellowcake to a Canadian uranium company and it will be used in Ontario, Canada, for use in nuclear reactors.

       He had that material for quite a while and kept it hidden. Now why do you suppose he did that?
       TAKE THE TIME TO READ READ THE ARTICLES. Are you trying to imply that those reports are fabricated?

       I’m a former intelligence/counter terrorism/Iraq analyst. Those reports reflect exactly what was found. Materials and documents we discovered indictated that Saddam had no intention of complying with the UN resolutions and that he was a major threat. There’s nothing false about those reports. Deny all you want, which is par for the course for those opposed to the Iraq war, but those reports are true and accurate.
       I stand by my comments.

       SFC MAC
13. 

    David

    18/05/2010 at 11:08

    I have been hoping for a long time that someone had taken the time to compile this information. The evidence was all there, you just had to know what it was you were looking at. Thank you for your efforts, and if you ever find yourself in Northern Arizona, drop me a line, coffee on me.

    SSG David Gordon, AZNG, Retired
    1. 

       sfcmac

       18/05/2010 at 11:15

       Dave,
       You bet, and thanks.

       SFC MAC
14. 

    John

    21/04/2010 at 02:24

    Excellent point Shane!
15. 

    John

    21/04/2010 at 02:23

    Regarding your response: Posted by: sfcmac | 04/20/10 | 11:00 pm |

    “To: daren_gray | 04/20/10 | 9:47 pm |

    I’m an Iraq War veteran, and I’m always amused by mealy-mouthed assholes like you who think they know what the fuck they’re talking about because Michael Moore said so.” etc, etc.

    First of all Cheryl, THANK YOU for your service! And thanks too for your excellent retort to “daren_gray”, who has his head so far up his own ass that….oh, nev-er mind! You get the picture! 😉
    If I could ever have the pleasure of personally saying hello and buying you a cup of coffee (or whatever?), I’d be honored! If you’d care to take me up one it sometime, please write back to me and I’ll direct you to my facebook page where there’s more about me.
    Thanks again for your service!
    John USASA (the former Army Security Agency) – 1968-1972
    1. 

       sfcmac

       21/04/2010 at 07:52

       John,
       Hello there! I was directed to the Wired site from Ace of Spades, another excellent political/milblog. I got into it one other time on there with someone of daren’s “caliper”. Same thing. The old ASA! My cousin was in that agency around 1974, at the Korean DMZ. It was disbanded in 1976, the year I joined. It was replaced by the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command. I was in the Signal Corps initially, then in PsyOps, then I reclassified my MOS to 96B, Intelligence Analyst. Just two years before I retired I was assigned to the Defense Intelligence Agency in D.C. I had an interesting career to say the least. I reside in the Cleveland area, about 30 miles west of there in a town called Lorain. If you’re ever in town, I’ll take you up on that coffee!

       SFC MAC
16. 

    Shane

    30/07/2009 at 15:48

    Please keep this posted for as long as our gov’t allows us to acces the www. I would like to compile hard copies of all these documents and articles for my children, so as not to allow the rewriting of our history during this turning point.
    Sincerely,
    Shane

Comments are closed.