Was Hitchens sober at the time? It’s like saying “Rush Limbaugh said it on the air, how can it be false.”

Great to see you contributing here.

Please be kind. I’m not part of any right-wing cabal – I’m an old lady who can’t type. By the time I gathered my thoughts and typed this up, the thread seems to be dying. Thanks.

Hi ctm,

While I’m not the master of all Libby details that EW, Swopa, Jane, Christy, etc. are, I did want to let you know that your post was read, and that you bring up an interesting question.

I take you at your word that you are not a troll, and I hope that you yourself do not believe it.

Sometimes folks can be “overly reflexive” in their responses, and without giving much thought, unfairly label a different point of view as the words of a troll.

Having seen your comments here over the past few days, I’ve noted some of those “must be a troll” responses.

Given your comments here in this thread, I feel ashamed for our lack of civility toward you and even more ashamed not saying so earlier.

If you should perhaps read this (it is indeed rather late in this thread), please re-visit your questions again in one of the new threads.

Hopefully we haven’t chased you away with our bad manners.

Where’s the source for the claim that Zahawie was Iraq’s representative to the IAEA? It’s not in that Hitchin’s article!

And if the forgeries were a cover up of an authentic transaction…why would they use al Zawahie’s name on them? Wouldn’t that draw attention TO HIM? And Zawahie’s trip was quite OPEN, it was reported in the media…which is where the Brits got hold of it.

And remember that the CIA, DIA, INR, French Intelligence, and MI6 were all looking into any and all evidence of a Niger-Iraq transaction and except for “forgery” and “son of forgery” passed for financial gain…found nada.

Thanks, Some points to research.

I doubt Hitchens would falsely claim that Zahawie had been Iraq’s representative to the IAEA – it must be checkable.

Didn’t the Niger-yellow cake business originate from Segreto, the Italian Secret Service, the “foreign government service” above? This has widely been debunked as a fraud.

I had also read about another Iraqi who actually did visit Niger in 1999. He was, at that time, Ambassador to the Vatican but was previously “… the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq’s senior public envoy for nuclear matters.”

Quote is from Christopher Hitchens’ article last April in Slate. I’d really like to hear thoughts on Hitchens’ theories. One is that the forgeries were a red herring thrown in to cover a real attempted deal. If it’s been discussed before, please direct me. Thanks”

According to Hitchens, there were two Iraqi contacts with Niger in 1999, and the Duelfer Report talked about a Niger visit to Iraq in 2001. Does anyone know more about this or have a comment on Hitchens’ article?

Please be kind. I’m not part of any right-wing cabal – I’m an old lady who can’t type. By the time I gathered my thoughts and typed this up, the thread seems to be dying. Thanks.

Well I think you aren’t simply an old lady who can’t type
because the above suggests that you seriously process the right-wingnut material and are intent on passing it on.

Where’s the source for the claim that Zahawie was Iraq’s representative to the IAEA? It’s not in that Hitchin’s article!

And if the forgeries were a cover up of an authentic transaction…why would they use al Zawahie’s name on them? Wouldn’t that draw attention TO HIM? And Zawahie’s trip was quite OPEN, it was reported in the media…which is where the Brits got hold of it.

And remember that the CIA, DIA, INR, French Intelligence, and MI6 were all looking into any and all evidence of a Niger-Iraq transaction and except for “forgery” and “son of forgery” passed for financial gain…found nada.

Hitchen’s theory sounds very much like the extremist conspiracy theorists that assert that the reptilian aliens that are in control of the government create some easily debunked UFO sightings simply to throw off really finding them out! It sounds as if Hitchens has finally drifted over into madness as a result of his shilling for a war that has gone desperately, horribly wrong on every major point that he tried to justify it!

Hitchens needs to simplify…why would Iraq NEED to get yellowcake this way (the already had some 400 tons in IAEA canisters in Baghdad)…and why take the risk of getting caught long before you had even developed the capacity to process such material.

Wingbats!

JEP

Also Thad Beier, I like pseudonyms. For me, they say don’t look at me, look at my ideas. If George Will or David Broder had to use pseudonyms their ideas would sink without trace because they just are not very good ideas.

And then there’s my reason for using a pseudonym. I feel free to post (and possibly say something stupid) and learn something new.

The fact that an old CIA report (not a new one) based on information that had been already considered unsupported and unverified by the intelligence community shows the desperation of those in the WH to support the SOTU.

NO AGENCY considered the “contract” reported by this foreign source to be valid at the date of the SOTU. All had rejected the information within as being unreliable. That’s why the WH rapidly fell back on the “vigorously seeking” talking point…because they had long before known that the SOTU wording could NOT be based upon these documents.

Do you have any thoughts on Christopher Hitchens’ contention that there were two Iraqi contacts with Niger in 1999, and the Duelfer Report that talked about a Niger visit to Iraq in 2001?

See my # 218. Thanks.

I was also interested to note the tasker with the “question” Cheney asked was dated Feb 13, 2002 . . . the day after Plame recommended Wilson for the Iraq trip. Which appears to’ve sunk the “behesting” bit as well.

Except that this ignores the fact that the CIA wrote a SECOND report based on that foreign intelligence source on February 5th, 2002. Oddly, the SSIC report appears to REDACT who the report was DISTRIBUTED TO! But from subsequent discussion we do see that the State Department INR (which heavily criticized it), and the Pentagon’s DIA got copies. The DIA used the CIA report to write their own report that was sent to the Vice President.

So, if the Office of the Vice President was given the Second Report or given a summary of its contents by any source (Tenet, the Pentagon, State Department, WINPAC reps) they may have verbally expressed interest before February 12th to the CIA.The wheels may have been set in motion before the VP receiving the DIA report.

In fact, that seems quite likely, since Craig Schmall briefed Cheney in the early morning of Feb 12th. And it’s doubtful that a document from the DIA would have passed from the WH Situation Room through to Cheney before that briefing. That means that his request that the briefer intitate a further investigation on a report was based upon the earlier CIA report. I suspect that Cheney wanted Schmall to find out what the CIA was doing about his earlier query.

The DO may have also received inquiries from State and the Pentagon…but it seems that both of the latter were using their own resources (see below). Wilson’s briefing definitely came AFTER Cheney’s inquiries, and may have been the principle reason that Wilson was sent rather than simply going with the State Department’s negative assessments from the US Embassy in Niger. That may have been noted at the briefing. Certainly Wilson wasn’t sent at the behest of INR, and other analysts were dismissive that his mission would be reliable…could statements by former officials who might be currying favor with the US be trusted to not exagerate?

Cheney’s then CIA briefer, Schmall, states “Cheney read the 12 June Pinkus (sic) article, which claimed the Ambassador’s trip was done at the request of the Vice-President. Cheney did not recall this at all. He couldn’t recall if he requested a memo on this issue. Research reveals that Cheney did ask and received a memo in early 2002…I sent to Scooter Libby’s then Chief of Staff, Eric Edelman…an early 2002 and an early 2003 memo on the Iraq/Niger/Uranium issue done for CHENEY and Rumsfeld, RESPECTIVELY.” [DX421 “CIA internal memo Re. FBI Session on Leak Probe”]

And guess what that report from the CIA that Schmall refers to was entitled? DX439 8 March 2002 “Nigerien Denial of Uranium Yellowcake Sales Claims to Rogue States”

http://wid.ap.org/documents/li…../DX439.pdf

So it seems that the OVP did receive Wilson’s report….just as the VP requested!

That Cheney already knew this is suggested by Libby’s notes of that June 12th , 2003 phone conversation with Cheney…in which Cheney tells Libby

“.) Took place at our behest-functional office-CP/his wife works in that div’n. Debriefing took place here & was meeting in region. OVP and Defense and State – expressed strong interest in issue

This is followed by a series of talking points that deny the above
1) didn’t know about mission 2) didn’t get report back, 3) didn’t have any indication of forgery- was from IAEA

http://wid.ap.org/documents/li…../GX104.pdf

So, it seems that Cheney DID request that the CIA look into the Iran-Niger reports, and did request and receive a memo back. That was Joe Wilson’s report.The question of the Genesis of the mission is still unclear, but it certainly could have been the result of a verbal request by the VP before Feb 12th, and because the SSIC didn’t interview the DO or others that may have been directly involved in the trip, and may not have obtained all the relevant records, the SSIC may not be complete on this issue. But it’s clear that Plame would not have had the authority to clear her husband for this mission…that was done by her superiors, and Cheney’s request gave them an important reason for doing so.

I’d love to see the wingbat THEORY of how the CIA coerced Cheney to make his requests to fall into the hands of the devious Plame-Wilson conspiratorial trap! A trap that only was sprung when Bush was deceived to use the “16 words” in the SOTU and THEN invaded Iraq. And the Plame network really set up the passing and delayed IAEA exposure of the Italian forgeries just right!

That’s all good, but personally I found most of those tidbits rather mundane. I was more interested in the report the Administration received four days before the SOTU, essentially recapitulating and expanding on the NIE. Specifically:

A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of “pure uranium” (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement.

Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Kinda blows the “debunked” theory, eh?

The fact that an old CIA report (not a new one) based on information that had been already considered unsupported and unverified by the intelligence community shows the desperation of those in the WH to support the SOTU.

NO AGENCY considered the “contract” reported by this foreign source to be valid at the date of the SOTU. All had rejected the information within as being unreliable. That’s why the WH rapidly fell back on the “vigorously seeking” talking point…because they had long before known that the SOTU wording could NOT be based upon these documents.

Regarding the assertion of Iraq seeking Uranium ore from Somalia…from what mines? Somalia has no yellowcake Uranium. And the DRC mine had been flooded for decades. This was established as being an unsubstantiated rumor. The intelligence report of Iraq “seeking” yellowcake from Somalia was actually based upon the discovery of a shipping invoice for a “500 ton” shipment of unknown material to an unknown destination. Because the quantity “matched” the amount cited in the Niger-Iraq reports this was considered important (even if the “contracts” suggested that the shipment would be in two “tranches”, not one). But after the the US Embassy in Niger, Gen. Carlton Fulford, the INR, and Wilson’s mission…the idea of any actual deal occurring was rapidly dropped. So none of the above cited African “sources” were considered viable. And they weren’t at the time of the SOTU. That’s all right there in the SSIC Report, as filled with critical redactions as it is!