Politics As Usual

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The British say they have sources suggesting that Iraqis went to Niger in 1999 to try to buy uranium. Not that they did buy it, or that it was even possible to get uranium out of flooded or French-controlled mines -- that this was their aim. We will never know if this "turns out to be right" because they're not sharing their sources.

"Correct" about what? That their sources said the Iraqis were trying, or that it was true? The latter is what matters now. We now control Iraq. We know their nuclear program was defunct. We have zero reason to believe there was any reason for Iraq to be trying to obtain uranium from Niger in 1999. Even if the 16 words in the State of the Union address were literally true, they are transparently irrelevant to any continuing justification for war.

I don't think the Brits are really adhering to the story that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium. They're just standing by their sources. What do you think Iraq was going to do with the uranium? Their nuclear program was defunct.

Presumably, the UK investigation saw the sources in reaching its conclusion. Assuming they did, in fact, seek to buy uranium, you don't think this is relavent? You would have us believe that they attempted to buy enriched uranium but did not have or were not planning to reconstitute a nukes program? So they tried to buy it for kicks?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by the Spartan
I'm not convinced that she won't be giving the acceptance speech.

Does anyone know if Kerry has any scheduled appearances at Ft. Marcy park in the next few weeks? Or any US Air Force flights over Croatia?

Barack Obama is going to give the keynote. His star is rising so fast that if Kerry's plane went down, I think they'd make him the nominee.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
budget stuff

I like the angle you're working. Get out in front baby, get out in front.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Presumably, the UK investigation saw the sources in reaching its conclusion. Assuming they did, in fact, seek to buy uranium, you don't think this is relavent? You would have us believe that they attempted to buy enriched uranium but did not have or were not planning to reconstitute a nukes program? So they tried to buy it for kicks?

Uday was a cokehead. He thought he was buying yellowflake.

[SlaveNoMore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Would you buy a pig in a poke from the British? If we're going to accept what they say at face value, without the back-up, instead of what our own intelligence professionals say, why don't we disband the CIA and save a billion dollars, and just ask them to share their conclusions with us?

And if we did, we'd still be Iraq right now.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Presumably, the UK investigation saw the sources in reaching its conclusion.

Maybe so, maybe not. If they were told this orally, there might be nothing to see.

Assuming they did, in fact, seek to buy uranium, you don't think this is relavent?

Why assume that? Given what we now know about Iraq's nuclear program -- i.e., that it was shuttered -- why would Iraq have been trying to buy uranium? Indeed, I think I've read in the last few days that Iraq still had some uranium (this may be in the Senate report), so -- as I think the CIA pointed out at the time -- it made no sense.

We control the freaking country. Don't you think that if the British reports still meant anything, there'd be some confirmation somewhere? Which is to say, all of this is incredibly irrelevant as a justification for the war. It only matters insofar as we want to know how fucked up the intel was.

You would have us believe that they attempted to buy enriched uranium but did not have or were not planning to reconstitute a nukes program? So they tried to buy it for kicks?

No: I would have you believe that -- just as the CIA decided at the time -- even if the British sources did say that the Iraqis were trying to buy uranium, the report was either wrong or of no consequence. Surely there could be all sorts of other reasons for Iraqis to be in Niger. Hell, my cousin was in Niger for a while, and she wasn't trying to buy uranium to build WMD to give to Al Qaeda.

[SlaveNoMore]

Tyrone Slothrop
Barack Obama is going to give the keynote. His star is rising so fast that if Kerry's plane went down, I think they'd make him the nominee.

I got a fin that says he loses to Ditka if the buffoon actually decides to run.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
I got a fin that says he loses to Ditka if the buffoon actually decides to run.

Done.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Uday was a cokehead. He thought he was buying yellowflake.

POTW

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
And if we did, we'd still be Iraq right now.

Exactly. Since the White House didn't use intel when it decided to invade, why not buy a cheaper fig leaf?

[the Spartan]

Originally posted by Slave
I got a fin that says he loses to Ditka if the buffoon actually decides to run.

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Done.

A "fin"!?!? :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: You two loveweasals and your whacky secret coded euphemisms!!

[sgtclub]

Link: The Lord Butler report.

Update 1: Here is what the Butler report says on uranium from Niger:


45. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

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.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it. (Paragraph 503)

Update 2: The Butler report says British intelligence found evidence of contacts, but not cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaeda (note: it is spelled al-Qaida in the report). The JIC was quite prescient about future threats in Iraq, though, when it warned against terrorists flocking into Iraq already on March 12, 2003

Reporting since [February] suggests that senior Al Qaida associate Abu Musab alZarqawi has established sleeper cells in Baghdad,to be activated during a US occupation of the city. These cells apparently intend to attack US targets using car bombs and other weapons. (It is also possible that they have received CB materials from terrorists in the KAZ.) Al Qaida-associated terrorists continued to arrive in Baghdad in early March.

Update 3: It now appears unlikely that Saddam Hussein had actual stockpiles of WMDs, Lord Butler concludes, but the Iraqi regime

a. Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted.

b. In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities, to seek to sustain its indigenous capabilities.

c. Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions; but did not have significant - if any - stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for deployment, or developed plans for using them. (Paragraph 474).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Link: The Lord Butler report.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 1: Here is what the Butler report says on uranium from Niger:


45. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

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.
d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it. (Paragraph 503)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This doesn't say anything that you haven't already said or that I haven't acknowledged. So what?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 2: The Butler report says British intelligence found evidence of contacts, but not cooperation between Saddam and al-Qaeda (note: it is spelled al-Qaida in the report). The JIC was quite prescient about future threats in Iraq, though, when it warned against terrorists flocking into Iraq already on March 12, 2003

Reporting since [February] suggests that senior Al Qaida associate Abu Musab alZarqawi has established sleeper cells in Baghdad,to be activated during a US occupation of the city. These cells apparently intend to attack US targets using car bombs and other weapons. (It is also possible that they have received CB materials from terrorists in the KAZ.) Al Qaida-associated terrorists continued to arrive in Baghdad in early March.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now you're changing the subject, but whatever. So what? Everyone except Dick Cheney now agrees that there were some contacts but no cooperation. Unclear what the second paragraph has to do with anything.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Update 3: It now appears unlikely that Saddam Hussein had actual stockpiles of WMDs, Lord Butler concludes, but the Iraqi regime

a. Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including if possible its nuclear weapons programme, when United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted.

b. In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities, to seek to sustain its indigenous capabilities.

c. Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions; but did not have significant - if any - stocks of chemical or biological weapons in a state fit for deployment, or developed plans for using them. (Paragraph 474).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So? You think this supports you in some way?

At least you seem to now be acknowledging that Wilson's credibility is unimportant.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
This doesn't say anything that you haven't already said or that I haven't acknowledged. So what?

I know, but it's helpful to see it in writing.

Now you're changing the subject, but whatever. So what? Everyone except Dick Cheney now agrees that there were some contacts but no cooperation. Unclear what the second paragraph has to do with anything.

Didn't mean to post that portion.

So? You think this supports you in some way?

I think it strongly supports the case for war.

At least you seem to now be acknowledging that Wilson's credibility is unimportant.

I have acknowledged that from the get-go. Go back and read my posts. I was agreeing with you.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I think it strongly supports the case for war.

President Bush evidently disagrees with you. Presented with the opportunity the other day. Bush didn't say, "My fellow Americans, so there weren't any WMD, nor any nuclear program. We were right to go to war because Saddam Hussein had the strategic intention of starting up his nuclear program again if containment ever stopped working."

Not wanting to admit error or change horses in midstream, he instead introduced a new phrase: that Hussein had "weapons of mass murder":

• Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq. We removed a declared enemy of America, who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder, and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.

Matt Yglesias fisks this nonsense:

Near as I can tell, this is a bald-faced lie. Saddam didn't have the capability of producing WMD. The phrasing was probably changed from "weapons of mass destruction" to "weapons of mass murder" in order to somehow make this come out as technically correct (Stalin killed an awful lot of people without any nukes or poison gas, so...) but we all know what he's talking about here. It's just not true.

Again, did Saddam have the "capability" of passing the weapons he couldn't build on to terrorists "bent on acquiring them?" Sure. But everything in Saddam's history -- including the period of time when he really had WMD -- suggests he had no inclination to do so. Meanwhile, the list of nations that have this capacity is rather large -- Pakistan, for example -- and we're not invading all of them. Indeed, thanks to the administration's bungling, it's a list that's grown to include North Korea. There's all these people out there offering better theories, though, if the White House wants to try and find something more plausible.

Originally posted by club
I have acknowledged that from the get-go. Go back and read my posts. I was agreeing with you.

Didn't get that. Sorry.