Isn't there a scandal out there that someone actually cares about?
Whatever. This is a bipartisan intelligence failure (Clinton, anyone) and not a real scandal.
End of discussion.
Posted by 114ldfj;o3i at February 2, 2006 11:33 PMI scrolled on by....(like Dionne Warwick)
Happy FRIday!!!
Posted by Sharon at February 3, 2006 04:57 AMThanks again eriposte, as always, a fine, thorough job.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 3, 2006 05:41 AMeR
HA! Couldn't resist, could you? Great post, as per usual.
I'm wondering about the post-war WINPAC/OVP relations though. I'm still trying to figure out why the animosity between CIA and DIA was so bad wrt Mahdi Obeidi. And I suspect it's partly because OVP had a plan to keep lying. While CIA was just trying to make their former lies come true. And, of course, it was CIA that eventually said there were no WMDs, even while Cheney was insisting there had been.
In other words, I think Libby may honestly have been attacking WINPAC, but because he felt betrayed that they gave up the lying game.
Posted by emptywheel at February 3, 2006 06:28 AMEW,
Yeah, I had to come out of self-imposed hibernation and somehow find the time to post one piece. :-)
I think you are right about the CIA/DIA tension and Libby's real problem with the CIA (they wouldn't lie as brazenly after the fact). I discussed the CIA/DIA angle in the context of the uranium issue here. Even there, you see the DIA continuing to peddle the uranium claim even after the CIA abandoned it.
Posted by eriposte at February 3, 2006 06:51 AMiamcoyote,
Thanks...have been more busy than usual and haven't been able to post as often as I would like.
Posted by eriposte at February 3, 2006 06:52 AMIt was worth the wait! Thanks again.
Posted by iamcoyote at February 3, 2006 08:39 AMman, you don't quit, do you?
good for you.
and what you do is good for us to be able to read and think about.
thanks for the effort.
two questions:
do you think, based on what you've worked through, that the ssci report was systematically biased in a way that protected the bush admin?
do you know of any writen effort that focuses specifically bias that might be in the ssci report, as opposed to your own work which has been more wide ranging?
Posted by orionATL at February 3, 2006 09:29 AMAbsolutely Brilliant.
It does lay out the terrifying fact that for all intents and purposes the Bush Administration is acting like Stalin, so the bureaucracy is acting like the Soviet state apparatus, to the extent of Lysenko style reality control.
Posted by boing!!! at February 3, 2006 12:31 PMeR--
Great work as always.
Am hopeful that a lot of new people
will become familiar with your analysis
with the posting on firedoglake.
Someone asked me how I spend my time,
I said thinking mostly, and then finally
taking action. We appreciate the time
you take to think through these complex
scandals.
Awaiting justice.
Posted by egregious at February 3, 2006 01:41 PMThe frustrating part is that such reporting sets forth in painfully meticulous detail the two word truth "Bush lied."
But the Neoconservatives won't read that, they'll just ignore it, impugn the author, and continue to spout more lies. Its thoroughness will be used as a sign that the author must suffer from obsession to be so very thorough.
At some point we need to be done trying to convince those who support Neocons that their government is treasonous. We need to be finished convincing people that playing apologist for the crooks in office is actually self-abusive.
We need, instead, to organize, to coordinate, to prosecute and to vote these radical Neocons out off office while the Justice system and the electoral process have any power left at all.
It seems like we have a very short time left to work within The System before The System itself will be dismantled, and change will only be possible working outside The System. And it would be dreadful if things came to that.
Posted by Albatross at February 3, 2006 01:43 PMorionATL,
>>> do you think, based on what you've worked through, that the ssci report was systematically biased in a way that protected the bush admin?
There is no question that the SSCI Report was written in a way that was biased in favor of the White House. I've shown that systematically in previous posts.
>>> do you know of any writen effort that focuses specifically bias that might be in the ssci report, as opposed to your own work which has been more wide ranging?
Many people have written about parts of the report - mostly on the web (although some of it is also in print) but I am not aware of any writings systematically focused just on the bias in the SSCI Report.
Posted by eriposte at February 3, 2006 06:39 PMWhy I love Saturdays: because I can find time to actually read and absorb the great analysis eR provides on this topic. Absolutely brilliant. I do think that your analysis will be used in future history books to make sense of the insanity of King George and his evil minions as they tried to justify their war of choice.
Posted by Mary at February 4, 2006 11:20 AMThe memo also related that there had been other, earlier claims that Saddam's regime had attempted to purchase uranium from private interests in Somalia and Benin; these claims predated the Niger allegations.
Anyone have any idea why the CIA memo references Benin as a target of Saddam's alleged uranium procurement attempts? According to SSCI, RS, Butler and various news reports, CIA had received information Saddam was seeking uranium from Somalia and DR Congo (which, as Waas' article points out, turned out to be bogus). This is the first I've heard of intelligence about a Benin attempt as well.
Posted by FMJ at February 6, 2006 01:22 AMFMJ,
Benin almost certainly refers to the bogus and infamous Nigerien uranium "stored in Cotonou, Benin" claim.
Actually, now that I re-read Waas' phrasing I wonder if he was mistaken here. The Cotonou, Benin, BS surfaces in the SSCI report well after the original Niger allegations, not before. Plus only Somalia and DRC are mentioned in the NIE. Perhaps he misprinted Benin instead of DRC.
Posted by eriposte at February 7, 2006 04:59 PMeR,
I think you're right and Waas probably made a mistake. Maybe the memo indicated the Somalia, DR Congo and Benin intelligence had all been recalled, but Waas conflated Benin and Congo even though Benin was post-NIE.
I emailed him yesterday. I'll let you know if I hear anything back.
Posted by FMJ at February 8, 2006 12:40 AM