This article is written in response to a discussion thread from my previous article Examples of a Commitment to Accountability in which a link to a You Tube post of Hannity's America painting Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson as liars and hypocrites, the recently declassified document about the findings of Joe Wilson's trip was disseminated. I took some time do some research regarding the matter and the evidence involved and am introducing some new exhibits namely some of the forged Niger documents and Phase II of the Senate Select Committee's on Intelligence (SSCI) report in the matters of intelligence failures leading us into Iraq under which the now declassified CIA report and the testimony of Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame Wilson was given and scrutinized.
THE CIA REPORT DOES NOT MAKE THE PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT TRUE
Translation of part of the "more credible" forged Niger/Iraq Uranium Documents from British Intelligence that Wilson was investigating:
NIAMEY, 07/27/2000 MR PRESIDENT, IT'S MY HONOR TO REFER TO THE AGREEMENT #3*1-NI 2000, REGARDING THE SUPPLY OF URANIUM, SIGNED IN NIAMEY ON THE 6TH OF JULY 2000 BETWEEN THE GOVERMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF NIGER AND THE GOVERMENT OF IRAQ BY THEIR RESPECTIVE REPRESENTATIVES OFFICIAL DELEGATES. ABOVE MENTIONED SUPPLY EQUIVALENT TO 500 TONS OF PURE URANIUM PER YEAR, WILL BE DELIVERED IN TWO PHASES. HAVING SEEN AND INSPECTED THE SAID DEAL. I APPROVE IN ALL AND EACH OF ITS INVOLVED PARTIES IN REGARD TO THE POWERS INVESTED IN ME BY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE 12TH OF MAY 1966.
Other documents kept the quantity at around the same amount fluctuating as high as 550 tons per year. All the forged documents indicated that Iraq DID buy uranium.
Report written after Wilson's trip based on information that Wilson found and judgements which he himself never read until presented to him by the SSCI:
in June 1999... a Nigerien/Algerian businessman... insisted that he (former Prime Minister Mayaki) meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations"... Although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to the United Nations sanctions against Iraq and the fact that he opposed doing business with Iraq. Mayaki said that he interpreted the phrase 'expanding commercial relations' to mean... yellowcake sales.
Wilson claims that he never discussed the interpretation of 'expanding commercial relations' with former Prime Minister Mayaki, but nevertheless, here are the 16 words (note to Sean Hannity: you only need one word to make a complete sentence, one can not say it is "barely a sentence") that are President Bush's unsubstantiated claim in his State of the Union Speech (SOTUS):
The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
The president cited the British Government as his source showing that he was not only just working off of the forged documents but that he just read whatever was handed to him as long as it supported his agenda which was war with Iraq and not capturing Osama Bin Laden who still roams free while his sworn enemy Saddam Hussein was executed. Bin Laden attacks us, then we direct our rage at Iraq. That sounds like a mission accomplished and then some for our supposed attackers. The Bush administration was pushing the CIA to come up with any reason to go after Iraq in the wake of 9/11 and one man who had been witness to the intelligence stepped forward. Then his wife was thrown in.
I agree with Sean Hannity that the Wilsons had an agenda, and that the agenda was to not let this country go to war because of lies and twisted versions of the truth. The significance of the CIA's document being declassified for George Bush is less than OJ's glove not fitting. So there may have been more truth to his statement than we thought. Name one other type of person for whom that could possibly be a positive attribute besides a compulsive liar.
Sean Hannity cites other evidence of Wilson's agenda as having supported John Kerry and for currently supporting Hillary Clinton while implying that a person supporting Hillary Clinton could not define him/herself as a centrist. I would not trust Sean Hannity's definition of a centrist, but he certainly knows his audience and pays no attention to what the President's statement actually said comparing it to what the report said.
Extra! Extra! Read all about it! The President's 16 words possibly containing 44% truth! Based on an interpretation.
Where are the WMDs that Saddam Hussein was supposed to lay out before the world and destroy? Sure they were unaccounted for but that is why the weapons inspectors were there, and they found nothing. We invaded and found nothing. There were not any mobile chemical/biological labs or terrorist ties either.
Looking back on Valerie Plame's work in the Counter-Proliferation Division (CPD), we now know that she did not feel that there was any credible evidence that Iraq even had WMDs. The human intelligence that the Bush Administration was putting their money on were known to be unreliable at best.
Wilson debunked the forged documents previous to the report on his trip that said Iraq had actually bought uranium at the rate of 500 tons per year. These are the same documents that the president was sourcing. That is a significant quantity wouldn't you say?
The SSCI Report, page 44 (referencing the CIA Report):
Mai Manga (former Minister for Energy and Mines) also described how the French mining consortium controls Nigerien uranium mining and keeps the uranium very tightly controlled from the time it is mined until the time it is loaded onto ships in Benin for transport overseas. Mai Manga believed it would be difficult, if not impossible, to arrange a special shipment of uranium to a pariah state given these controls.
Given the strict and verifiable French control and accounting procedures of the uranium coming out of the Nigerien mines, the forged documents are now considered to be a deliberate plot of disinformation which is under the investigation of the FBI. Coincidentally, I am entertaining guesses at the source of this disinformation campaign.
Hannity never indicates that the reports that Wilson was investigating had specific numbers involved yet the CIA report only mentioned discussing expanding commercial relations and that the former Prime Minister only interpreted that to mean uranium without specifying quantities much less significant ones.
When intent to purchase significant quantities of something is judged by not mentioning any quantities or even the product suspect of being wanted then there is something wrong especially if your time frame for discussing "recently" is four years prior, pre-9/11, with no credible evidence since. Consider this: Can a nation under harsh sanctions with hundreds of thousands of children starving to death because of these sanctions be looking for something other than uranium? However unlikely you may find Iraq to have been casing Niger for anything other than uranium, the pre-emptive war still took place in the Bush Administration's (and FOX News') favor and what did we find?
A more accurate statement considering the intelligence, would be 'We have intelligence that indicates Saddam Hussein may have sought uranium in Africa'. It does not sound like it should be in a speech motivating the country toward war, but at least it would have been accurate. Accuracy has not been the fulcrum of this administration.
According to the report it was Iran that was seeking significant quantities of uranium as Sean Hannity acts like Wilson was trying to withhold that from the public. Wilson discovered it. It is in the report is it not? What does Iran have to do with President Bush's misleading statements? Absolutely nothing.
It's not like Iran's nuclear ambitions were a big secret to the MSM. They were the ones keeping it from the public. Former CIA analysts were being interviewed left and right in public and independent media outlets concerning fears of actual nuclear proliferation and not the fictional proliferation in the realm of Iraq-Land. The MSM was too busy parroting the Bush Administration's rhetoric, painting a picture of Saddam as a WMD stockpiling despot who had a hand in 9/11. It was all Iraq, Terrorism, 9/11, Saddam, Osama Bin, Hussein, WMD, 9/11. It was fine stenography and info-tainment for the Hawk-of-Heart with little room for other news on Iran, North Korea, or Darfur. The MSM did not report on Iran's nuclear ambitions until the Bush Administration brought it up after the Iraq War was well underway and sustainably unwinnable.
I did a search at FOXNEWS.COM for "Nuclear Iran" and found that while the more current dates are loaded with stories on this, going back to 2002 it is difficult to find Iran not mentioned with Iraq and/or North Korea while those stories are drowing in a sea of Iraq this, Iraq that, WMDs, Uranium, Aluminum tuuuuuuubes, Democrats are a-holes, the President kicks ass. I particularly liked this article: Rumsfeld Warns of Terror With Super-WeaponsThat sounded like a job for Superman. That kooky war criminal.
I did this search only after being frustrated to find anything on 'Nuclear Iran' antebellum in the Google News Archive. I did find this wonderful article in the Taipei Times (CLICK) however.
Also note that on the SSCI Report page 44:
In an interview with Committee staff, the former ambassador was able to provide more information about the meeting between former Prime Minister Mayaki and the Iraqi delegation. The former ambassador said that Mayaki did meet with the Iraqi delegation but never discussed what was meant by "expanding commercial relations." The former ambassador said that because Mayaki was wary of discussing any trade issues with a country under United Nations (UN) sanctions, he made a successful effort to steer the conversation away from a discussion of trade with the Iraqi delegation.
That sounds like a reasonable explanation, not that reasonableness is the lifeblood of truth, but what is more believable: 1) That a man entrusted by the CIA who worked as an ambassador in high regard of both Republican and Democratic administrations put himself in the crosshairs based on a blatant lie that he did not think would come out or 2)That this trusted man put himself in the crosshairs with the truth at heart?
Hannity seemed to take issue that Wilson was "leaking classified information" including in his OP-ED article, but I think he is more upset about the state of his precious war.
From the SSCI report page 39:
DO (Directorate of Operations) officials told Committee staff that they promised the former ambassador that they would keep his relationship with CIA confidential, but did not ask the former ambassador to do the same and did not ask him to sign a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement. The former ambassador left for Niger on February 21,2002.
Hannity says that Wilson is guilty of exactly what he accuses the Bush Administration of doing as if calling the President on his lies is the same thing as destroying a covert operative's career (who CIA Director General Hayden has referred to as "covert") in a treasonous maneuver undermining a vast intelligence network. Had that never happened, the Wilsons may have never suspiciously denied Valerie's role in recruiting her husband which in itself amounts to squat in the case against the Bush Administration because the information Wilson found was given a rating of Good by the CIA, which is the best rating it could get considering there was no information to be found supporting the claims he was investigating. As Sean Hannity admits:
Revealing the Wilsons' hypocrisy will not help Scooter Libby and it certainly won't help bridge the partisan divide that this story created.
That is only because it has nothing to do with Libby's multiple accounts of both obstruction of justice and perjury (no one gets indicted for that who is not trying to hide something), and as for the partisan divide, you may as well blame the rooster for the sunrise. The fallout of the lies and intentional confusion of the American people will haunt the world for decades.
Sean Hannity's "journalistic style" (for lack of a better term) is indicative of a mainstream media appealing to emotion over fact with his dramatic pacing to the music indicating a wall of lies falling, engulfing the Wilsons, and exposing their super-secret agenda of getting Hillary Clinton elected. Having studied all aspects of theatre, film, and the mass media, I know dramatic technique when I see it, and it was wonderful theatre. Such techniques have no place in legitimate journalism though. As for the "lies" regarding Valerie Plame recommending her husband for the trip:
(SSCI Report, bottom of page 39)
The former ambassador had traveled previously to Niger on the CIA's behalf (REDACTED). The former ambassador was selected for the 1999 trip after his wife mentioned to her supervisors that her husband was planning a business trip to Niger in the near future and might be willing to use his contacts in the region.
Having done this before for the CIA Wilson was obviously well qualified meaning that Hannity's busting her for lying about suggesting the right man for the job. A business trip? I'm surprised Hannity didn't accuse Wilson of seeking uranium.
From page 71 of the SSCI Report:
On June 17,2003, nearly five months after the President delivered the State of the Union address, the CIA produced a memorandum for the DCI which said, 'since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.' This memorandum was not distributed outside the CIA and the Committee has not been provided with any intelligence products in which the CIA published its corrected assessment on Iraq's pursuit of uranium from Niger outside of the agency.
Why are you not hearing about the Wilson's indiscretions directly from the Bush Administration and only from their attack dogs? Because they and now the Legislature know that the indiscretions on their behalf are far more damning.
Perhaps you do not still think highly of the Wilsons for whatever reasons, but you do not need to. This is part of the International Atomic Agency's (IAEA) presentation to the UN on March 7, 2003 after reporting the unprecedented access they have received from Iraq before our invasion forced them out:
At this stage, the following can be stated: One, there is no indication of resumed nuclear activities in those buildings that were identified through the use of satellite imagery as being reconstructed or newly erected since 1998, nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities at any inspected sites. Second, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import uranium since 1990. Three, there is no indication that Iraq has attempted to import aluminum tubes for use in centrifuge enrichment. Moreover, even had Iraq pursued such a plan, it would have encountered practical difficulties in manufacturing centrifuge out of the aluminum tubes in question. Fourth, although we are still reviewing issues related to magnets and magnet-production, there is no indication to date that Iraq imported magnets for use in centrifuge enrichment program. As I stated above, the IAEA will naturally continue further to scrutinize and investigate all of the above issues. After three months of intrusive inspections, we have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a nuclear weapon program in Iraq. We intend to continue our inspection activities, making use of all additional rights granted to us by Resolution 1441 and all additional tools that might be available to us, including reconnaissance platforms and all relevant technologies. We also hope to continue to receive from states actionable information relevant to our mandate. I should note that in the past three weeks, possibly as a result of ever-increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been forthcoming in its cooperation, particularly with regard to the conduct of private interviews and in making available evidence that could contribute to the resolution of matters of IAEA concern. I do hope that Iraq will continue to expand the scope and accelerate the pace of its cooperation. The detailed knowledge of Iraq capabilities that IAEA experts have accumulated since 1991, combined with the extended rights provided by Resolution 1441, the active commitment by all states to help us fulfill our mandate and the recently increased level of Iraqi cooperation should enable us in the near future to provide the Security Council with an objective and thorough assessment of Iraq's nuclear-related capabilities.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 41
President Bush WAS correct in his assertion that Iraq had recently sought uranium. Is this really a question? They were obviously seeking it from the A.Q. Khan organization, from North Korea, from Niger, from Russia..............from anyone who'd sell it to them. Fortunately, no country wanted to cross the U.N. picket line, set up to keep Iraq from going nuclear.
On June 17,2003, nearly five months after the President delivered the State of the Union address, the CIA produced a memorandum for the DCI which said, 'since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring, we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.' This memorandum was not distributed outside the CIA and the Committee has not been provided with any intelligence products in which the CIA published its corrected assessment on Iraq's pursuit of uranium from Niger outside of the agency.
"In late 1990, shortly after Saddam Hussein seized Kuwait and the UN Security Council imposed an embargo on Iraq, Khan offered Iraq assistance in building centrifuges and making nuclear weapons. This offer is detailed in a set of documents found by UN inspectors at the farm of Hussein Kamel, Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, after his 1995 defection."
Read about the whole offer from the A.Q. Khan network..........an interesting read :
http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/2006/Jul/albrightJul06.asp
As for the Iraqis not being content under Saddam Hussein, do you think they are content now?
The A.Q. Khan network was still making trips to Iraq in 2000, some say even as late as 2002, although I've never seen documentation of that. Almost right up to the point of the invasion by U.S. forces.
Iraqi delivery systems (missiles) were, by UN treaty never to be allowed to travel more than 45 miles. Even the UN inspectors found unused missiles that had a 110 mile range, violating yet another treaty. This incensed Mr. Bush enough to alert the UN that he'd had enough and was sending in the troops. UNMOVIC scrammed town quick, and rightly so.
Francis, I was just in Jordan for work, a couple of weeks ago and I spoke to a lot of Iraqis there. They're happy that we came in and got rid of Saddam. Most said he'd still be there if it wasn't for American forces. However, most still think it's too violent to return. Al-Qaeda is not liked in Jordan, nor by most of the average everyday Iraqis on the street. They'd like to have us gone, but fear what will happen the day after we leave. They still love America though - you just can't say that enough....lol.
The only thing positive about this is Saddam's removal from power, but even that coin has a darker side. A power vacuum was created to be filled by three different styles of theocracy. There is less religious tolerance now than was under Hussein, and the same can be said about peace, life expectancy, educational opportunity, opportunity in general, electricity, and air-conditioning. Sure, many people who got out of there may be happy, but they don't have to live there. You can bet that for at least the next few decades, Iraqi politics will be soaked with blood, corruption, and veangence with or without us there.
According to what Don Rumsfeld said on CBS news shortly after the invasion had started, Mr. Bush saw this 110 mile range missile as 'the final straw'. After playing footsie over opening alleged nuclear sites to the UN inspectors for 12 years, I believe that Mr. Bush was sick of Saddam's nonsense. This issue finally popped Mr. Bush's cork. Frankly, I was surprised he kept his cool as long as he did.
Why didn't he just give up and have the U.S. fly him off to France, the way they did with Baby Doc Duvalier?
I'm in no position to speak for Saddam Hussein but what exactly would he give up for? He had no WMDs and there is today still no evidence that he had reinstated the nuclear program, and who trusts an enemy who was once your best ally who now condemns you for having the very thing that they were supplying you with? He was privy to the propaganda being shown to us. He alone firsthand knew whether the allegations were true or false without having to investigate. Either way there was no indication he would have been treated fairly, not that he deserved it. He was cornered, the only thing to do was go down swinging, or scurrying, whatever. A better question is why do we support corrupt governments then dispose of them when it suits us? Our issues in the middle east have more to do with that than anything.
Iran would not have been overrun by fundamentalists if we weren't supporting the Shah to the point that he had absolute power. Funding corrupt and oppressive governments makes the oppressed people hate you and rightfully so.
He has no spokesman.......any more.
If I were Saddam and I heard that the world's most advanced military was heading up my main highway to the capital, I'd make some kind of deal.
I understand that no nukes were found. I was just as shocked as everyone else. However, all those nerve gas agents found in Bayji, Iraq caused a little hickup in the "W lied" movement, didn't it? :
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-73528548.html
I couldn't agree with you more on the question of why we support dictators in the region. All it ever does is come back to bite us in the ass later on. But this time was truly unique. Since we supplied Saddam with some of his weapons in the early 80's, shouldn't it be us who cleans up the mess later on? I think we did that.
If you're after my vote for next Saddam, you've got it.
I understand that no nukes were found. I was just as shocked as everyone else. However, all those nerve gas agents found in Bayji, Iraq caused a little hickup in the "W lied" movement, didn't it?
Not really. I remember watching it on the news and they said the nerve gas was expired. I took that to mean it was probably left over from the batches supplied to Iraq by Reagan and Bush41 as it was the very same stuff used on the Iranians and Kurds.
Since we supplied Saddam with some of his weapons in the early 80's, shouldn't it be us who cleans up the mess later on? I think we did that.
Replacing the old mess with a costlier mess unwanted by either nation is hardly cleaning up. That's called making a bigger mess. We literally made a mountain out of a mole-hill, or as then Sec of Defense Dick Cheney would have called it after the first Gulf War (had we continued into Iraq), a quagmire. That's one thing that history has proved him right on.
I thought the Bayji find was entertaining because the Left in this country went into full 'spin mode' when it was initially discovered. Rather than say "yea, that Saddam was an asshole!", they instead went underground for a few days, not saying a word. Only when it was found to be from the 1992 timeframe did they raise their heads out of their foxholes. I just thought it was funny to watch them scurry....lol.
What if 10 pounds of uranium had been found? I wonder what the Left in this country would have said then.........
What if 10 pounds of uranium had been found?
What if Saddam Hussein killed Jesus? That's a BIG what if. Hey what if we went into Iraq and actually found WMDs, Nukes, A Secret Unicorn breeding program where unicorns were being trained to suicide bomb, and the mission schematics to 9/11? Answer: Then this war would have absolutely been justified.
Mr. Bush should have just made a case against Saddam Hussein's evil deeds, citing his usage of chemical weapons in Halabja. I have no problem with his assertion that Iraq was seeking nukes from the A. Q. Khan network either. They were. In the super-heated atmosphere of retribution after 9/11, I think this was enough to depose Saddam.
The hypothetical 10 pounds of uranium wasn't necessary.
How dare he use those weapons we gave him on innocent people. Like you, Saddam Hussein did not like dissident voices. The Bush Administration didn't want that to be covered in the media though and that's why there was no mention of it. Reagan/Bush41 certainly would not even comment on it when it was going on because they had the receipts for the weapons and warcraft used. Saddam was a "good guy" back then you see and that's why we have that photo of Rumsfeld shaking his hand from the same era and that's why he's the only world leader we're all on a first name basis with. Believe me, the only solace I get from this quagmire is that Saddam Hussein is burning in Hell, but it was certainly not worth the cost. Hell can wait. Over a million people have died to make a small amount of people including people directly related to Osama Bin Laden a whole lot of money.
I have no problem with his assertion that Iraq was seeking nukes from the A. Q. Khan network either. They were.
Of course you don't have a problem with that. Nothing that the president will ever say or do will ever be without your support; however, the President made no such assertion. The uranium was supposed to be coming from Africa. I love how your justification is coming from nowhere near Bush's lips. As long as it is right in your own mind, it doesn't even have to come from the President's mouth. That is very interesting Bret. Perhaps you are the human intelligence that the president needs so you can tell the Intelligence Community, "Wait... wait... I can still justify this War."
In the super-heated atmosphere of retribution after 9/11, I think this was enough to depose Saddam.
Are you saying that it was ok to go after Iraq because of 9/11 or are you apologizing for it? Yes, all the hype before the war of nukes, wmds, unicorns, al Qaida links was all feeding into the lust for "9/11 retribution." If only we weren't provided with a scapegoat by the administration, the perpetrators may have been captured or killed. Isn't it interesting that they do not care to capture the perpetrators of 9/11 anymore?
I read a report that reached the same conclusions that you do, in the Washington Post.
There is no depth of deception or untruth to which Hannity will not sink.
Is it because the General you are talking about is full of crap? One of the many false intelligence sources that the Administration was relying on perhaps
Hannity is shown to be a liar and an ass, and the feeble-minded like vickey w. are sure that people hate him for telling the truth.
This is the heart of the 29% that support Bush -facts, truth, reality, fairness, honesty, do not matter. If it touches the words or deeds of the AWOL in Chief, then it must be explained away.
Never had a chance to comment on the truly inane remark by Bret, apologist for the worst President in modern history.
"...the Bayji find was entertaining because the Left in this country went into full 'spin mode' when it was initially discovered."
Considering that all three major East Coast papers (Post, Times, Globe) published doubts about this much-trumpeted "discovery" the next day, I don't see where anyone went into hiding.
Glad that you can enjoy seeing a dim-witted fraud like Bush be exposed for the liar that he is.
That was the experience of most of the country.
And, the frauds, and the continuous incompetence adds up -you won't see a Republican Congress before 2012.
In my article I explain why his "journalistic style" can be appealing to certain types of people. You like how he does your thinking for you and reinforces your worldview with spin and innuendo. I assume you read my article. I provided his clip as a companion so that you could check out the use of music and dramatic pacing. What he calls journalism can be likened to theatre.
Help me get a publishing deal with a 10 rating and comment. I comment back.