A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was declassified by the State Department.

Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department's intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send "25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers" filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.

Among the many glaring errors evident in the documents, which were allegedly produced by an underpaid Nigerien diplomat and published in La Repubblica, was the use of obsolete letterheads, incompatible dates and poorly forged signatures.
In one document that supposedly formalized the sale of uranium to Iraq, dated October 2000, bears the signature of a man who had not been Niger's foreign minister since 1989.

Another letter was both addressed to the president of Niger and signed by the president of Niger -- although it uses the wrong symbol for the president's office.

What part of what Joe Wilson's findings that corroborate the above do you not understand Lorie?

This is not a game you are playing with people's lives spouting such trash talk. Our kids and many innocent Iraqi's are dying daily because of the lies the present administration spoon fed to you. When are you going to be courageous enough to tell the truth?

Since when does any liberal really care about soldiers or kids?

cb,

It's not the shiny coin you're holding in your hand we're looking at. It's the one you've palmed in the other.

The forged document had nothing to do with the 16 words.

Let me repeat that: The forged document had nothing to do with the 16 words.

Once more, for the logically challenged: The forged document had nothing to do with the 16 words.

"Unfortunately, in Washington as in tinsel town, once the storyline is set, it's hard to change it, even in the face of overwhelming evidence it is fictional."

Unless, of course, the movie is a turkey at the box office. Then it'll have to shake off the stink of failure, which is tough to do. Stone's "World Trade Center" arrived with much aplomb and evaporated before the tally of the opening weekend's receipts were even tallied.

If this movie does come out (which is seems likely since if it costs $50m to make and garners $75m - which also seems likely - in the first couple of weekends, it'll still pull profit) and it either tanks ($75m is considered a tank), receipt-wise, or ends up gathering up razzies instead of oscars, it may very well be socially discredited and tossed into the DVD bargain bin next to "Ishtar" or categorized under the "it's a good movie but I don't buy a word of it" ala "JFK."

Whereas lefties will applaud the "guts" and "character" of this weasel as they walk into the theater, they certainly can't and won't tolerate an afront to the art of film making. Especially if a big name director is attached.

As much as it sickens me that this snake-charmer has garnered this attention (which he says is causing him physical and emotional pain - apparent as he has to bite his lip while primping for the cover of Vanity Fair), and will continue to do so, I have faith in the ability of Hollywood to defy the odds and screw up a sure thing and turn an erstwhile good idea into a laughable, cultural flame-out (Phantom Menace).

Joe Wilson did not lie. He never said that Cheney sent him. Not in his Op-ed, the Kristof article nor the Pincus article. His wife did not send him. The CIA used Wilson in the past, and asked Valerie to facilitate a meeting.

Did he lie or misspoke? According to the SSCI, there are questions on what and when did Wilson know of the forged document. In the Kristof and Pincus articles it appears that Wilson claims to have seen the forged document. This I believe is the "Misspoken" statement Wilson made in front of the SSCI, but according to Tenet, Wilson must have been briefed on the contents of the document, or why would Tenet make this statement?
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030711-cia01.htm

"He (Wilson) reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office." George Tenet 7/11/03

Wilson's findings were validated by two other independent reports (State and Defense). The so called trade meeting never resulted in any discussions of buying yellowcake, and no other meetings or follow-ups ever occurred. These accounts were verified by the Nigerian Prime Minister and the Iraqi Ambassador who was on the mission, so between 1999 and 2002, there were no contacts between Iraq and Niger.

The bottom-line is that the only person that has been convicted of a lie is Scooter.

Civil, what you fail to recognize is that this all stemmed from Wilson's contention that "Bush lied!". Remember the "16 words" that everyone was in such a tizzy over? We know Iraq didn't buy uranium or yellowcake or even purplecake from Niger. No one said they DID buy it. And neither did the President in any of those 16 words.

The President said Saddam was "seeking" to buy it. Niger's officials testified that Iraqi officials did indeed show up there to discuss business with Niger and that's as far as it got. You can continue to ignore that the Iraqis were certainly not there to seal a lucrative deal on cow peas if you want to.

Then Joey gets up on his soapbox screeching, "Bush lied! They didn't buy yellowcake!"

Well, duh.

Why is this so hard to understand?

"These accounts were verified by the Nigerian Prime Minister and the Iraqi Ambassador who was on the mission"

Well, now that you've pulled two impeccable sources such as those, how could I possibly disagree?

I mean, if you're investigating Iraq, and the Iraqi Ambassador says they're not up to devious activities ... well, that just sums it up for me. Toss on the Nigerian PM and ... open and shut case.

*whew* I'm glad we can put this to rest.

Here's yet another face of cb's shiny coin. The 'at least one international border' is with Libya and it is in untracked desert wastes, unpatrolled. That may even be where Yellow Cake went, if in fact, Hitchens idea that the forgeries aped a real agreement, is true. There certainly was a black market in yellowcake in Africa, as the French found out in !999. eRiposte's lovely, but deluded, scholarship pointed out that gem on theNextHurrah.
===========================

Oyster, they understand. They are propagandists. The cleverness of their sophistry guarantees that they are not so stupid as to believe this stuff they propagate.
============================

Yes, why can't we right wing idealogues get it through our heads that the difference between "lying" and "misspeaking" is simply the party registration of the speaker. It's that simple!

yo, Al Zahawie retired in 2001 and moved to Amman. He was interviewed post invasion. He had no reason to lie. His accounts are verified by the PM.

The key finding of the Wilson mission was this:
"He (Wilson) reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office." George Tenet 7/11/03

Therefore, as early as 2002, the CIA knew of serious problems with the forged document, but did not investigate the authenticity of the document until after the invasion.

That sounds like a load of crap to me.

yo, I believe that Val was having trouble selling her book, maybe no longer. I believe the story that the CIA wouldn't allow much of it out was cover for the fact that real publishers now realize Joe and Val are phonies. This conviction has changed the dynamic, however, and there will now always be a reservoir of believers in their probity. This is the Rosenberg, the Sacco and Vanzetti, the Dreyfus Affair of our era. Simpson and Anna Nicole, fluff.
==========================

Why Barney, you've stumbled over something huge in your path. Why didn't the CIA figure out that the forgeries were fake until the IAEA. Who'd a been in charge of that. Maybe Val? Or some one familiar?

Find out about the CIA inventory person checking in the papers in October of 2002, who noted 'funky seals' on the papers. Find out what happened to his curiosity.
=============================

"He had no reason to lie."

... really? Everyone's got a reason to lie. Apparently Bush and Cheney have reasons to lie.

Also, you're putting a lot of faith in the Nigerians. You think they wanna' tell the US "Oh, yeah .. we were talking to the Iraqis about selling them yellowcake"? In their minds, that could be akin to saying "Hey! Cripple our economy with sanctions!"

I'm not saying that you're wrong. I'm just saying I'm not buyin' your argument. Again, if Bush can (and according to many, does), why can't these guys fiddle with the truth, a shade?

Kicking along that line, why can't Joe lie, as well?

The bottom line reason that this effort is being made to sustain and to rehabilitate Joe and Val is that the meme they set in motion is desperately important for the Democrats to maintain in order to retain credibility in foreign affairs.

It is a losing battle, though. The truth will out, and the longer and harder it is suppressed, the more vigor with which it responds.
===================================

"What is not so easy to understand, however, is why they continued to do so after so many of Wilson's claims were shown to be demonstrably false"

Which ones? Or should the casual reader just take your word for it?

No wonder The Examiner is a free paper. Keep at it, "Practicing" Journalist.

Maybe we got deceived into war by the Counterproliferation Division of the CIA. My only question, really, is: was it by incompetence, or design?

Riddle me that.

And still, aren't I glad? Saddam needed gone. Period.
===========================

Kim, whereas I think the conviction changes the dynamic, I think it does so only minimally. Granted, the folks that are pro-Val/Joe are tinkling their diapers with glee, the general public, honestly, could probably care less. Most don't really understand the situation and probably don't want to waste a few hours and $30 on a book. Additionally, they probably won't want to spend 2 hours and $10/head on seeing the movie (unless Val does a nude cameo).

The market simply isn't that energized, now, and certainly won't be at the end of the year or so it will take to produce this movie (unless Val does a nude cameo).

I think I can safely say that most Americans would rather see a bio-pic about Anna Nicole than pony up their scratch to sit in a theater to sit through the movie-version of this episode (Unless Val does a nude cameo).

The far-left kooks will be there in droves (those that can afford it), of course; but, in the end, it won't matter.

... unless of course, Val does a nude cameo. And, even then, there may have to be a couple of midgets involved, as well.

In the Dreyfus Affair analogy, NBC has a place similar to that of the French Army, and the Democratic Party has an analogous place to all those who opposed Drefus because he was a Jew. Note I'm not explicitly calling the Democratic Party antisemitic, here, only that it fills the analogy.

However, if you want to mention the 'N' word, we might get less implicit.
==================================

Disclaim expertise at Dreyfus.
===================

"Which ones? Or should the casual reader just take your word for it?"

Helps to read the link provided.

yo, I believe the ongoing events in the 'war' against islamofascism will determine the future course of the Joe and Val Show. If we get lucky, and moderate elements of Islam prevail into the future, then I think Bush's confrontation of the radicals will be seen as watershed.

Joe, Val, all theirs, the disloyal opposition.
===================

"..you're putting a lot of faith in the Nigerians. You think they wanna' tell the US "Oh, yeah .. we were talking to the Iraqis about selling them yellowcake"? YO

The biggest talking point from the right is that the PM said Iraq requested a meeting, and he assumed the discussion involved trade of uranium.

Are you saying that the PM was a lier before he told the truth or the other way around?

Who are you crapping?

Ever Again
======

Well I see the old goathumper is back. (couldn't be p'p'-naaw).

"Additionally, they probably won't want to spend 2 hours and $10/head on seeing the movie "

Good point. Look at the movie Breach, it is a far more intriguing story and it is doing squat in the theater.

Yo and Kim: The Washington Post, the left wing mouthpiece has an editorial stating Joe Wilson's assertions were false. Only the oblivious lefties here refuse to speak ill of Joey boy. As far as the movie, it will do as well as the recent take off of GW with Dennis Quad. Can't remember the name of the film, but that is my point. ww

Kim, I agree with you, there. I'll even go you one better by saying that should history even bother with the Wilsons, which it probably won't, it'll footnote them as cry babies who tried to aggrevate Pappa Bush by continually knocking their sippy cups from tehir high-chair trays.

"He (Wilson) reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office." George Tenet 7/11/03

That's the point! Wilson kept focusing on disproving something that was never said right from the beginning. Joe set out to verify whether uranium was sold. No one said it was.

Obfuscation of the facts ain't workin' here. The Iraqis went there to "expand commercial relations". That is a fact. What commodities does Niger have to offer? Uranium, cow peas and cattle. With the OFF programme in full swing, for the life of me, I can't imagine they were there for anything other than to scope out the territory on future deals in uranium while their friends, the Russians and the French, lobbied for lifting sanctions. One has to completely ignore every other underhanded deal perpetrated by the Iraqis to think this is not the case. Saddam certainly wasn't concerned about feeding the citizenry, as was demonstrated when the OFF scam was uncovered, so that pretty much rules out peas and cattle, eh?

Is critical thinking a lost art?

"Are you saying that the PM was a lier before he told the truth or the other way around?"

What I'm saying is that these characters may have gotten too much credibility, from both sides.

Oyster, note that Soros, besides just putting 2% of his fortune into Halliburton, also spends nearly half a billion a year on 'public service' projects, basically, manipulating elections, actually to much apparent benefit in Eastern Europe. That money can buy a lot of clever sophists to convince a lot of useful idiots. I agree that he seems to fight authoritarianism, but why doesn't he understand the perversions he introduces. I mean, it's fundamentally anti-democratic.
===========================

The non-reaction of the conservative community, and the Republicans on Capitol Hill, is particularly depressing. Joe Wilson's mendacity regarding the origins of his trip to Niger, his findings once he got there, and his conduct in trying to recast the findings once he got back, are all fair game.

Yet I don't hear any voices calling for him to be tried for "Lying to Congress." Ask Oliver North about how much tolerance there is in the "mainstream media" for that. Or maybe the content of the lie is more important than the actual act.

As you pointed out in your excellent column this morning, a bi-partisan Senate panel already refuted Wilson. Can't we at least remind the public that this guy is a liar and, but all appearances, a partisan hack who can't possibly be seriously considered as a martyr. And the "mainstream media" can't be given a pass on their non-coverage of this angle either.

Don't conservatives want to get on our feet again. The canvas isn't that comfortable.

And of course, his efforts when propaganda, are destructive of critical thinking skills, which is another one of a free peoples' life support necessities.

Soros' Apprentices; forgive them, for they know not what they do.
========================================

oyster, the accounts of the trade meeting are well known. Why don't you answer your own question? Are you too stupid to do a goggle search? Do you even care to know what the PM said was actually discussed in the meeting?

Of course not, that would blow your little bubble.

In related news, Newsweek is reporting that Libby does not qualify for a pardon based on Justice guidelines. If Bush does pardon Libby, Bush would violate his own pledge to follow the guidelines when a pardon is considered.

Don't drop the soap Libby.

"Don't drop the soap Libby."

If Bush is such a liar, what's to stop him from cutting Libby a break?

The non-reaction of the conservative community, and the Republicans on Capitol Hill, is particularly depressing. Joe Wilson's mendacity regarding the origins of his trip to Niger, his findings once he got there, and his conduct in trying to recast the findings once he got back, are all fair game.

Yet I don't hear any voices calling for him to be tried for "Lying to Congress." Ask Oliver North about how much tolerance there is in the "mainstream media" for that. Or maybe the content of the lie is more important than the actual act.

As you pointed out in your excellent column this morning, a bi-partisan Senate panel already refuted Wilson. Can't we at least remind the public that this guy is a liar and, but all appearances, a partisan hack who can't possibly be seriously considered as a martyr. And the "mainstream media" can't be given a pass on their non-coverage of this angle either.

Don't conservatives want to get on our feet again. The canvas isn't that comfortable.

BarneyG2000 said:
The key finding of the Wilson mission was this:
"He (Wilson) reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogu