Here's a clue geniuses: read the SSCI.
There you will find that the Washington Post journalists have completely misrepresented the January 24, 2003 uranium memo. It did not say that the story was "baseless". What an utter lie.
Read the SSCI. Stop letting journalists shove your head in the sand. They are lying to you.
Don't believe me? Read the SSCI.
You're going to strike out again. Listen to me, and you might not have to eat crow once again, as you had to on various other posts on here recently.
Posted by Seixon at April 12, 2006 08:03 AMeriposte,
Have you looked at the discussion of the SOTU and the Powell speech in Woodward's "Plan of Attack" (specifically the story about Libby and Hadley on p. 288 - 291)? Can you match that scenario up with what we know from the SSCI?
Posted by William Ockham at April 12, 2006 08:07 AMSeixon,
Clearly, you, the "genius" have not read the SSCI report on this at all. The WP journalists are talking about a memo that is not discussed in the SSCI report - this is exactly the pattern that you have displayed in every comment thread. You don't bother to read the details - have no interest in facts or logic.
Perhaps you were sitting next to George Bush and the NIC and know more about the NIO Africa memo than the SSCI Report knew, but in that case, the right thing to do is to share your deep "knowledge" rather than attack people who don't celebrate your ignorance.
Further, as a further testament to your deliberate misleading and ignorance, it is obvious you didn't read my post at all because my post did not make any use of the new memo reported on by the Washington Post to make the case I made in the post.
This is the last warning to you. Either stop lying and peddling fakery here - or I will have no choice but to ban you from this comment thread. You can rant and rave and peddle all the lies you want on your own blog.
Posted by eriposte at April 12, 2006 08:15 AMShocking that Bush was getting conflicting opinions. Can't have that.
=====================================
Hear, hear, eriposte. And here comes the minion, kim. Even idiots can't help coming to read your exhaustive research. Thanks for the clarification with the new revelations.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 12, 2006 08:38 AMSeixon - Just in case you don't get it: the NIC memo the Washington Post reported on 1) is not the January 24, 2003 package faxed from the NIO to the NSC; 2) is not mentioned at all in either the SSCI report or Robb-Silberman. We need much more information on the newly reported January 2003 NIC judgment that the Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest - I for one am remaining skeptical the Post got the story fully right until I get further confirmation - but the crap you're saying is just incorrect on its face.
Posted by Jeff at April 12, 2006 08:41 AMeriposte - Here are a couple of questions about the Jan24-NIOSNP-fax.
Was it declassified and released to the press in July 2003, as Fitzgerald tells us it was being pressed to be, along with the NIE, which was declassified, and the report based on Wilson's trip, which evidently was not? If so, precisely when - July 18, when the NIE was publicly declassified and released to the press in connection with Barlett's press conference on background? (Perhaps the release of the NIE overshadowed this other document at the time.) Or July 22, when Bartlett and Hadley went on the record with faces of shame after the "discovery" over the weekend of those two memos sent from CIA to Hadley and the Cincinnati speech writers?
And if it was not declassified, how did a)someone in the press know enough about it to ask a question about it at the July 22 press conference, and b)Miller and Sanger know even more about it, so that they could report on it, in rather administration-friendly fashion on July 23, as joejoejoe at the TNH thread you mention noticed.
Posted by Jeff at April 12, 2006 09:02 AMr, ‘tngld wb’ s n ndrsttmnt. Y’v dn trmnds mnt f wrk; hwvr, sspct tht y’v nly brfly tchd tht prvrbl ‘tp f th cbrg.’ Y s, th prblm s tht nc w lrn tht th C r Pntgn s nvlvd n nythng, nd mn nythng whtsvr, gttng t th trth sng th mthd f srtng vlbl vdnc, s mpssbl.
Fr xmpl: (ths s spcltn bsd pn tkng lng lk t r C gngstrs vr th yrs) thr r prbbly C clls tht r smltnsly ssgnd t ‘bjctfctn’ dts pn th scnsn f r pltcl pppts tht th C thmslvs mplc. Ths ‘bjctfctn’ dts r smply crtng prpgnd crrclm bth spprtng nd dftng th nwly nstlld pppt. nthr cll my b ssgnd t scr nsd prtvs t trck, rcrd, th pppt’s hbts, frnds, tc., f nly t gthr dt shld t b ncssry n th ys f r C kks t mrdr th dscrdd pppt nd rplc wth nw pppt r smtms t prtct/dfnd th pltcl dp.
Th ppr-bjctfctn-trl-crp tht gnrtd by ch cll s ftn dn n sltn frm ch thr. Thy my nt b wr tht whn thy r rcrdng crp, thy my b rcrdng n nknwn C prtv. S, whl n C dt plnts ‘rnm’ vdnc, nthr C dt rcrds th ‘vdnc f rnm.’ Pls s mgntn t fgr hw cmplctd ths my bcm dpndng pn th lngth f tm, (whch cld b yrs, vn dcds) pltcl vl f th trgt, nd th lvl f cntr-ntllgnc th hst gvrnmnt hs th blty t mstr.
n ddtnl vrbl s tht th Stt Dprtmnt hs grwn nt pwn f th C, mr r lss, dpndng pn th gvrnmnt nvlvd. nyhw, th C smtms prbbly dsn’t hv th cntrl vr th Stt tht t wnts. S thy nfltrt th Stt Dprtmnt! sng vrs mthds, frm ptrtsm, t xpltng wk prsnlts, t flg wvng, t trght pyts, th C, nd th Pntgn, s myrd frms f prssr tchnqs t frc sss n th Stt nd rlnt dpndng pn th pltcl sttn.
Frthr, th dts t th Wht Hs dn’t hv cl s t th bsc ntr f thr th C r th Pntgn, BT THNK THY D. S, th WH cn gnrt ll srts f gfy ppr, wtht ny sns, bt psh lng jst th sm crtng wk f sprfcl cnfsn n th s f C ttl cnfsn.
Wht’s n nvstgtv rprtr t d? Fr strtrs, lt f rsrch n th vrydy rlty f th vrs dprtmnts n gvrnmnt. Thn, jst myb, thr s lwys tht lttl pssblty f dscvrng tht dmnd, tht prl, n lrg fld f wds nd thrns. Ths prl wld b sm vry ld gy, nt rtrd, bt qt knwldgbl f jst bt vrythng tht gs n n th C nd th Pntgn. Hs knwldg wld b smpl bt ppr cnvltd n th srfc. vn thn, h cldn’t b trstd; w mst rmmbr tht Mllr whr, nd Mllr ws sy. Thnks, r.
Here are some questions we need answered about the very important report on the JanXX-NIOAfrica-memo.
1. Does this document actually exist and is at as described? Specifically, does it really date from January 2003? Is it the authoritative judgment of the NIC? And does it say the Niger story is baseless and should be laid to rest?
2. What is the exact date of the memo?
3. When precisely was it received at the White House? By whom? What did that person do with it? Who else at the White House learned of it? Specifically, who in a position to do anything about the SOTU learned of it, and when exactly? What did they do with that knowledge?
4. Why is there no mention whatsoever of this document, as far as I can tell, in either the SSCI report or Robb-Silberman?
Further down the road, there may be these other questions:
5. Is there any connection between the White House learning of this document, and the NSC putting out a call for any new or more intel on Iraqi WMD on January 24, which resulted in Walpole, the NIO for whatever, faxing over a package of rehashed NIE stuff to the NSC, among other things presumably?
6. Did the newly reported NIC memo play any role in the decision for Powell not to include the Niger story or any claim based on it in his presentation to the UN shortly after the SOTU?
Posted by Jeff at April 12, 2006 09:19 AMAwful lot of paranoid nothing, scout, just to call yet another woman a whore. Who cares if it's Miller, your pathology compels you to denigrate any woman you talk about. You are no different from Dobson or Falwell, no matter how many paragraphs you use to hide it.
Posted by iamcoyote at April 12, 2006 09:20 AMPresident Bush had some conflicting intelligence wow so he reacted in a way that fulfilled his oath he decided to nuetralize a threat. If he had trusted the Wilson version and then we had gotten attacked with a dirty bomb made from Uranium from Nigeria the you would be screaming for his head just a loudly as you are now. I have come to the conclusion the majority of people that hate President Bush is simply out politics. Liberals oppose the war simply to oppose the war hoping for a resergent 60's not wanting to let go of their youth and brain washing their kids. Oh well to each his own theroies and selected facts.
Posted by Avenger D-22 at April 12, 2006 09:49 AMavenger if you could pull your head out of your ass for 5 minutes you would realize the chimp is hated as a fascist, war mongering, lying, incompetent sack of shit...
Posted by headxray at April 12, 2006 10:08 AMAwful lot of paranoid nothing, scout, just to call yet another woman a whore. Who cares if it's Miller, your pathology compels you to denigrate any woman you talk about. You are no different from Dobson or Falwell, no matter how many paragraphs you use to hide it.
There's a point I hadn't considered before, scout calls women "whores" if they are slaves to their corporate masters but s/he uses no such invective for men who are slaves to the corporatocracy. Just another mysogynist.
Posted by ann at April 12, 2006 10:13 AMI'm a misogomist, but not a misogynist.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 12, 2006 10:23 AMPresident Bush had some conflicting intelligence wow so he reacted in a way that fulfilled his oath he decided to nuetralize a threat.
Did hyping the parts of the intelligence that supported his desire to "fulfill his oath" and not releasing the parts that councilled a more measured approach to "fulfilling his oath" all fall under the umbrella of "fulfilling his oath" because that makes it sound an awful lot like your impression of what his oath is is that he took an oath to mislead the American people in order to rush into a war that he wanted.
If he had trusted the Wilson version...
Because we all know that Joe Wilson was the single solitary person expressing any doubt about the capacity of Saddams WMD aspirations.
...and then we had gotten attacked with a dirty bomb made from Uranium from Nigeria...
Because lord knows Saddam Hussein would be the only one with access to Nigers uranium.
...the you would be screaming for his head just a loudly as you are now.
Perhaps. But not because he didn't invade Iraq. So your point is moot.
I have come to the conclusion the majority of people that hate President Bush is simply out politics.
Well at least your consistantly wrong.
Liberals oppose the war simply to oppose the war hoping for a resergent 60's not wanting to let go of their youth and brain washing their kids.
A resurgent '60's? Damn man are you living in a time warp or what? Personally, I oppose it because it was unnecessary and counterproductive. I knew it was unnecessary in late 2002 as did many others. And it has clearly proven to be counterproductive.
Oh well to each his own theroies and selected facts.
Well since you haven't stated a single fact in this comment I'll go away safe in my belief that the facts are indeed on the side of those who opposed this war from before it was begun by George Bush and continue to oppose it to this day.
Posted by snark at April 12, 2006 10:53 AMdamn, no spellcheck on the comments. what can I say, I was feeling pissy.
Posted by ann at April 12, 2006 10:53 AMOK. So what is this then:
On January 24, 2003, in response to a question for the Office of the Secretary of Defense/International Security Affairs for information on Nigerien uranium sales to Iraq, the DIA provided a background paper which described the original CIA Niger reporting and the November 25 Navy report on alleged storage of uranium destined for Iraq. The paper concluded that "DIA cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore or yellowcake from Niger. However, sufficient time has elapsed since the commencement of the recent alleged uranium agreement, that we cannot discount that Iraq may have received an unknown quantity." The report made no mention of the foreign language documents on the alleged uranium deal and did not indicate that there were any concerns about the quality of those documents.
Might this be the document that Fitzgerald was referring to?
I see that I mixed up the NIC memo with this memo in regards to the WaPo sayings its contents said it was "baseless". However, as this memo makes clear, on the same day, they did not find that it was baseless.
There's no doubt that the NIO in Africa thought it was baseless - that's what Wilson already reported back long before that. The CIA, however, did not think it was baseless.
Also, the NIO did not have the new intelligence that the CIA had, from the Navy on Nov 25 2002 and also new intelligence streamed into the CIA from either France or the UK on the eve of the SOTU confirming that Iraq had sought uranium.
You guys continue to ignore it, of course.
Posted by Seixon at April 12, 2006 11:23 AMSeixon - One of the reasons it's important to know much more about the NIC memo is that it's an NIC memo. The WaPo reports that the Pentagon asked the NIC -- the body that produces the NIEs -- for an authoritative judgment on the Niger story. So if the resulting memo is as described by the WaPo, unless I'm missing something, it wouldn't just be another data point for the White House, on a par with competing and differing assessments from different places. It would be a sort of trump of those other assessments, insofar as it was produced by the NIC, and as an authoritative judgment from the intelligence community per se. (Again, I'm happy to be corrected if any of what I've just said is wrong.)
There are still a lot of ifs about this, since we've heard so little about this document. I'm suspending judgment on whether it even exists until we hear more. But if it is as described, and the White House learned about it right before the SOTU, it could be a very big deal.
Posted by Jeff at April 12, 2006 11:53 AMEven then, he couldn’t be trusted; we must remember that Miller whore, and Miller was easy.
Scout: Why do you not get some serious treatment. You are one incredibly sick fucker. How can you write the bile that you do, and moreover, actually believe in it?
Posted by tempus at April 12, 2006 05:08 PMJeff,
But wasn't it a document from NIO in Africa? How does that have precedence over an assessment from the DIA and the CIA?
Posted by Seixon at April 12, 2006 06:31 PMSeixon,
You asked about the DIA memo - again, without reading my post. The Jan 24, 2003 DIA memo is one of the two memos that this post is about. Do me a favor and read what I write before critiquing it. This is a joke.
The date of the NIO Africa (NIC) memo is TBD.
And we guys don't "continue to ignore" the "new" intelligence. The CIA WINPAC Director told the White House not to refer to the CIA intel in the SOTU speech. The WINPAC Director - who was trying to accommodate the NSC as much as possible, told them not to refer to any intel from the CIA because the CIA did not considered the uranium claim credible - as George Tenet confirmed personally on July 11, 2003.
Again, if you read my post, none of this would seem odd.
I've long ago debunked the Navy report and why that was a bunch of garbage. I don't have time to keep educating you on this.
Posted by eriposte at April 12, 2006 08:38 PMJeff,
Very good questions - and I hope the journalists who broke this story will do some follow-up on it.
Posted by eriposte at April 12, 2006 08:41 PMSeixon,
Two things seem relevant, though again we await further confirmation. First, the Post tells us the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the NIC, which is the coordinating agency for the intel community as a whole. So regardless of who drafted the memo, if it comes from the NIC, that's different from something that comes from just one agency. (After all, it has to be written by someone, and even the NIEs are written by someone, at the end of the day.) We need to confirm that it was offered as from the NIC, and/or as an authoritative judgment of the intelligence community, and not just one guy's view. However, second, even if it tends toward the latter, the Post makes it sound like this was a new and more complrehensive assessment, whereas what the DIA and CIA produced roughly contemporaneously were, as far as we can tell, just rehashes and recapitulations of old stuff. (I'm getting that in part from the SSCI descriptions of them.)
Posted by Jeff at April 12, 2006 11:46 PMIt might be possible to have a discussion about information flow in a busy executive office(and like it or not, Bush is CEO of the world, and raising stakeholder value for all, even the sullen) and it might not. Remember the buck that stopped on an illustrious predecessor's desk? Well, at the end of the day, Bush has got to make change from that paper on his desk, and despite imperfections in the results, the Iraqis and we are better off without Saddam in power.
And the Persians and the world will be better off without Ahmadinejad in power.
Posted by Not your mignonne at April 13, 2006 07:04 AMHey, these people gassed each other for years. Oh my Godwin, was it the Iraqis and the Persians, or was it their leaders?
======================================
Snark,
The post by headxray proves my point.
eriposte,
The CIA were not comfortable with citing their own intelligence, not because they didn't think it was credible, but because talking about their intelligence on the uranium would have meant revealing their sources. That's what it says in the SSCI. You are wrong. In fact, I believe the SSCI says that both the WINPAC and NSC guy believed the claim was credible at the time.
The DIA memo made the case that it was credible that Iraq had sought uranium.
And once again, everyone is ignoring the other intelligence that was flowing into the CIA before Bush made his SOTU.
Posted by Seixon at April 13, 2006 09:32 PM