Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Mr. Hinteler: You may have discovered that the following is found on P. 125 of the Butler Report and also found in the essay by Podhoretz- Who is Lying About Iraq-

quote

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium, and the British government did not claim this.

end of quote.

If you do not disagree, and I am certain that you will if I am incorrect, I must then credit Mr> Podhoretz in being COMPLETELY ACCURATE CONCERNING THE OFFICIAL REPORT FROM THE 'OFFICIAL' BUTLER REPORT. This,of course, detracts greatly from any claims that Mr. Podhoretz' reporting is in question.

Thank you, Mr.Hinteler!

0 Replies

The Podhoretz piece was disposed of a long time ago. He is an idealogue and the piece is not worth the paper it was written on.

Even the White House acknowledges that the yellow cake thing should not have gone into the speech. But it was purposely put in the speech despite numerous warnings and reports that there was no effort by Iraq to purchase yellow cake.

0 Replies

Mr. Advocate, If you are able to do so, do a search for Butler Report. When you get it, go to P. 125, there you will find the exact same words written in the Podhoretz article. If I am incorrect< I am sure you can show why. If I am not, then you obviously do not know what you are talking about when you say that the Podhoretz Article has been disposed of.

I gave you a challenge< I doubt you will be able or willing to meet it. Nevertheless, anyone who views this thread is aware of my challenge to you!!

You will, I hope, have noted my suggestions to Mr. Walter Hinteler. I do not know if he has done so but I am sure that he has since he is a dililgent scholar.

**************************************************************

Mr. Hinteler-I think you are wise to go to the original sources. That is always the best tactic. If you go to search and type in
Review of Intelligence on Weapons on Mass Destruction

You will access the Butler Report.

Then you must go to Page 125 of that Report to find the conclusions about the Niger Uranium story.

You will find that its conclusions are EXACTLY WHAT MR. PODHORETZ HAS IN HIS ESSAY.

I think then, you may conclude that Mr. Podhoretz is an honest essayist.

0 Replies

Bernard, it is agreed that Iraqis visited Niger. And using just a little bit of common sense, since uranium is one of the main exports of Niger, and what else would Iraqis want from Niger?

Now, Advocate and others can try to tell us that Niger officials would tell everything to Joseph Wilson of all people, while sitting around drinking tea. I don't buy it. Wilson found out nothing that was not already known, which makes his later writings and activities inconsistent with how others viewed all of this. My conclusion: Wilson and Plame were conducting a political agenda, not the true intelligence work for which they were hired to do.

0 Replies

The main issue is, Saddam did not/could not buy yellow cake from Niger. It doesn't matter what was said. Saddam didn't buy any. On top of all that, Saddam did not have the right equipment to enrich yellow cake into weapon's grade uranium.

Who gives a shet what they said? Some people will never "get it."

0 Replies

Okie, I don't agree that Iraqis visited Niger to get yellow cake. Do you have a link showing they did so, and when?

0 Replies

From the Washington Post:

White House Backs Off Claim on Iraqi Buy By Walter Pincus
The Washington Post

Tuesday 08 July 2003

The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.
The statement was prompted by publication of a British parliamentary commission report, which raised serious questions about the reliability of British intelligence that was cited by Bush as part of his effort to convince Congress and the American people that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program were a threat to U.S. security.

For most people with some common sense, this should be enough proof it does not matter what was said buy whom on this issue. The president admitted this issue should not have been mentioned in his SOU speech.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Okie, I don't agree that Iraqis visited Niger to get yellow cake. Do you have a link showing they did so, and when?

Go back and read Bernard's information.

Advocate, you don't have to agree on anything, but I simply pointed out a couple of facts:
1 - Iraqis visited Niger.
2 - Based on Niger industry and what Iraqis might want, intelligence officials have concluded that their visit was probably for the purpose of obtaining yellowcake.

Nobody has ever said they did in fact purchase yellowcake, or that it was 100% for sure that Iraq's contacts with Niger were for the purpose of obtaining yellowcake. Not much in intelligence work is 100% sure.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Advocate wrote:
Okie, I don't agree that Iraqis visited Niger to get yellow cake. Do you have a link showing they did so, and when?

Go back and read Bernard's information.

Advocate, you don't have to agree on anything, but I simply pointed out a couple of facts:
1 - Iraqis visited Niger.
2 - Based on Niger industry and what Iraqis might want, intelligence officials have concluded that their visit was probably for the purpose of obtaining yellowcake.

Nobody has ever said they did in fact purchase yellowcake, or that it was 100% for sure that Iraq's contacts with Niger were for the purpose of obtaining yellowcake. Not much in intelligence work is 100% sure.

God knows I would never visit anyone without the intention of buying the product they sell the most of.

What is Condi buying in Israel and Lebanon this week? I guess Bush was buying immigrants from Mexico on his trip there since that is Mexico's biggest export.

The visit from the Iraqis in 1999 was part of a several nation tour to invite African leaders to visit Iraq in an attempt to break the embargo.

0 Replies

Parados, please read the following:

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/footnotes/2004/07/butler_report_e.html

A couple of things I learned from this is the information about Iraq previously purchasing uranium from Niger in the late 70's. And they weren't the only country they purchased from. By the 1980's they were able to extract uranium from their phosphate mines. However, when these were destroyed in the first Gulf war. The IAEA supervised further dismantling and monitoring of these sites to make sure they did not start up again.

So when the visit to Niger took place, it was only natural for intelligence people to think that a probable purpose was to obtain yellowcake, especially considering uranium was a large portion of their exports. Its called "connecting the dots," Parados, which is done everyday by intelligence experts. This connection of dots was also supplemented by other intelligence.

Something else I learned from this, if it is to be believed, and why have we not heard about this? At least I had not heard of it. Here is a quote:
"494. There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached."

Parados, you somehow have complete trust in Saddam Hussein, but at the same time you apparently believe Bush is a pathological liar. I do not wish to put words in your mouth; I can't say for sure you've ever said those exact words, but that is the logical conclusion from reading your posts. You fit the mold of most liberals on this forum and everywhere else. You somehow find a way to believe Saddam Hussein was believable. Perhaps you and your fellow libs will also go into mourning when Fidel dies.

0 Replies

Okie, the Iraqis did a lot of things prior to 2000, but that is ancient history in the scheme of things. Saddam dropped plans for WMD some time before Bush took office, and Bush was so advised. But no information was going to deter his plans for an invasion. See the Downing Street Memos.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Parados, you somehow have complete trust in Saddam Hussein, but at the same time you apparently believe Bush is a pathological liar. I do not wish to put words in your mouth;

For not wanting to put words in my mouth you sure put them in there.

Quote:

I can't say for sure you've ever said those exact words, but that is the logical conclusion from reading your posts. You fit the mold of most liberals on this forum and everywhere else. You somehow find a way to believe Saddam Hussein was believable.

Sure.. like the US state dept felt there wasn't any evidence to support the claim that Iraq was trying to buy uranium. That dang Bush must have put liberals in there too. The fact that the CIA had differing opinions doesn't mean a dang thing either. Only a liberal would look at a visit and not see it was to buy what the country sells. Now what is Condi buying in Israel again? I keep forgetting.

Quote:

Perhaps you and your fellow libs will also go into mourning when Fidel dies.

Gee. When you can't argue facts just accuse the other side of being commie lovers. Thanks for proving your stripes once again Okie. You can't have a discussion without making it partisan and anyone that doesn't agree with you must be a commie.

0 Replies

parados, The conservative projections of how we think is just amazing isn't it? It comes out of thin air - out or their own imaginations, and they try to make statements for us we never even suggested. Their pathology would suggest a very distrubed mind - maybe, unbalanced.

It's in their mind-set that unless we love Bush, we're all commie lovers, and trust all the tyrants of this world, and trust them more than our own president. It's okay that president Bush is a sociopath.

0 Replies

Parados and Imposter, lets all admit we have built in biases. You have yours, I have mine. It is so frustrating to encounter the liberal arguments, which tend to blame America first. I tend to blame the dictators and despots first. America is far from perfect, and often our choices hinge on bad or worse. Some of these countries don't give us a perfect choice. However, that is largely their fault in my opinion.

There were people accusing the Bush admistration of not connecting the dots before 911. Now, even so-called educated people are accusing Bush of cooking up the plot. This is all very bazaar to say the least.

Now, world opinion wants to give Hezbollah the benefit of the doubt and nitpick Israel to death. The way I see it, if Israel has a right to defend itself, then defend them. Innocent people have always died in wars, and remember Hezbollah is only one group of many terrorist groups that teaches hate and will strap bombs on their own children to kill a few Israelis. These people are sick, sick, sick.

I am tired of the apologists.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

parados, The conservative projections of how we think is just amazing isn't it? It comes out of thin air - out or their own imaginations, and they try to make statements for us we never even suggested. Their pathology would suggest a very distrubed mind - maybe, unbalanced.

It's in their mind-set that unless we love Bush, we're all commie lovers, and trust all the tyrants of this world, and trust them more than our own president. It's okay that president Bush is a sociopath.

Then start proving by your posts that you like America ahead of dictators and commies. I am willing to apologize for the comment if I see I am far off track.

0 Replies

okie wrote:
It is so frustrating to encounter the liberal arguments, which tend to blame America first.

Damn! When will you guys ever learn. We don't "blame America first." That's your projection that isn't quoted by any liberal. You're hopeless. Show us where any liberal or moderate blames "America first.?"

0 Replies

Is the only way for you retract is when we agree with you?

Fact- the CIA had differing opinions about whether Iraq was trying to buy uranium.
Fact- The state dept felt it wasn't true.
Fact - The British also had doubts about it.
Fact - in retrospect no one now thinks it happened because the "evidence" has proven to be false.
Fact - The IAEA stated - "no indication that Iraq attempted to import uranium since 1990"

In 2003, the diplomat that Iraq sent to Niger was interviewed by the IAEA. He said there was no attempt to purchase uranium. The Niger government said there was no attempt. The documents Iraq provided on the trip show no attempt.

I am tired of being called unamerican because I don't lick Bush's ass. Maybe you need to grow up and realize that being in America means that others get to have different opinions.

0 Replies

Parados- Your position is ridiculous. You know NOTHING about the attempt of Iraq to but Uranium. You give a quote but no references.
Do you think you can convince people by making things up?

I will give you a reference. THE BUTLER REPORT. If you know how to read, reference it-Search for BUTLER REPORT..Then go to P. 125. There you will find the following:

QUOTE__

A. It is accepted by all parties that IRAQI officials visited Niger in 1999.

B. The British government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring Uranium. Since Uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger's exports, THE INTELLIGENCE WAS CREDIBLE.

C. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING SOUGHT, Uranium, and the British Government did not claim this.
*********************************************************

Now, if your argument on this matter are to be more than unsourced ignorance, YOU MUST SHOW THAT THE BUTLER REPORT DID NOT SAY THIS> You can't, so your argument( unsourced, as usual) is wrong!

0 Replies

Indeed, if you continue reading the BUTLER REPORT, you will discover the following concerning the importance of the so called "forged documents"----
Quote from the Butler Report
(t)he forged documents were NOT available to teh British government AT THE TIME ITS ASSESSMENT WAS MADE , AND SO THE FACT OF THE FORGERY D O E S N O T UNDERMINE ( that assesment).
End of Quote
Your statement about false evidence is ludicrous,Mr.Parados.

I really don't know if you are aware, Mr. Parados, that given your reflexiv e hate for anything the Bush Administration stands for, that I would accept ANY comment made by you that did not have a reference. I view almost all of your contentions as dishonest and crafted to denigrate the Bush Administration. I view your positions as those coming from a completely one sided political partisan.

I cannot accept your ignorant UNSOURCED postings for those reasons!

When you decide that you will present evidence other than that coming directly from you, there will be a basis for discussion.

In the meantime , ADDRESS MY SOURCED EVIDENCE COMING DIRECTLY FROM THE BUTLER REPORT!

0 Replies

Since I am certain that you have never read the Senate Intelligence Committee Report, Mr. Parados, I will extract one of its conclusions. You are, of course, able, I hope, to read it for yourself.

Note:
Quote Senate Intelligence Committee:
(U) Conclusion 13. The report on the former ambassador's trip to Niger, disseminated in March 2002, did not change any analysts' assessments of the Iraq-Niger uranium deal. For most analysts, the information in the report lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal, but State Department Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) analysts believed that the report supported their assessment that Niger was unlikely to be willing or able to sell uranium to Iraq.

End of quote

Your unsourced comments in your post are obvioulsly ignorant!!!!

0 Replies

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know