Skip to main content

View Diary: Joe Wilson Vindicated (216 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Not to be a party pooper (0+ / 0-)

    But I believe the RW talking point is that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake--not that he did in fact buy yellowcake.

    The meeting rebuffed in 1999 is held a truth of this contention.

    Now, it is a big leap from a general trade meeting to "trying to buy yellowcake", but this is usually bridged by claiming Niger has no other possible exports that would have interested Iraq.

    So I don't see how this revelation refutes any RW talking points.

    Unless, of course, I am missing something here.

    Abe: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star!

    by Sylvester McMonkey Mcbean on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 10:42:37 AM PST

    •  1999 meeting DEBUNKED (11+ / 0-)

      By the Senate Intelligence Report issued Sep 2006.

      It had been debunked by others before that, but only those unwilling to believe the print on the page of the Senate Intelligence Report still cling to the 1999 meeting talking point.

      The definitive, final answer: Iraq didn't do ANY uranium shopping after 1992. They didn't have a nuclear program AT ALL. Not even scientific research. The documents the Bush Administration tried to push as "evidence of intentions" wer actually documents Iraq was required to keep on hand for weapons inspection purposes. If they had been destroyed, I'm sure that would have been hyped as suspicious activity too.

      Prove that you don't have a dog. It's more difficult if you EVER owned a dog. Absence of a dog won't prove that you aren't hiding a dog.

      •  Yep... (13+ / 0-)

        ...and suppose Saddam WAS shopping. So the hell what? You going to tell me that's worse than NK, which shopped and now HAS them? I do not see how Saddam is any worse than KJI. Iran even shopped, and the declassified information says so, yet we didn't invade Iran back then (though AEI would certainly have rubber stamped that one). Also, shopping implies intent, however it does not prove that he's been taken up on his offer. Every country in the world could be our ally and Saddam the only remaining despot, and he could still ASK. I can ASK to shoplift something; it doesn't mean I'll get the product of my request. Additionally, the declassified memo details just how difficult it would've been to make the transaction possible, even if the political will was there, which it wasn't.

        It's more a question of whether anyone cooperated and agreed to sell him the stuff. In which case, I would think the majority of international pressure would come to bear on the seller, moreso than the purchaser. Saddam only received so much hype because he got himself into the little black book of dictators America refuses to act in any logical manner toward. Saddam was basically on the same page as Castro and KJI, the truest form of the "we don't negotiate with dictators/terrorists" ethos.

        We are only in Iraq because of people with power that feel they need to make no excuses to anyone for anything for any reason. I'm just surprised we haven't invaded Cuba by now, let alone Iran.

    •  Whatever the RW talking point, (3+ / 0-)

      the 16-word lie Bush told in his SOTU four years ago is: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." They can talk whatever points they want, but that's what Bush said.

      I happen to have that handy because of a longish review piece I'm reading over at truthout. Don't flame me for adding that link because it's by Jason Leopold. It's an interesting wrap-up of the lies leading to Iraq and the Libby trial.

      •  And though it was literally true, it was wrong (3+ / 0-)
        It was literally true. The British government, some portion of it, did report that Iraq had sought uranium in Africa.

        However, it was deeply misleading since the CIA had said, (a) the British are wrong, and (b) it's clear that even if he did try that he would not succeed in acquiring yellowcake and (c) why would he bother, since they were sure he had plenty already?

        And the administration knew all those things and put the line in the speech anyway, for effect.

        The might as well have said, "An American newspaper has reported that Osama Bin Ladin is telemarketing American citizens to purchase aluminum siding," which is equally true. No need to add that the original source of that is The Onion. Kinda takes away from the punch of the speech, don't you think?

        Fry, don't be a hero! It's not covered by our health plan!

        by elfling on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 01:42:53 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The key word here is "sought". (3+ / 0-)

        Not "bought". A lot of people seek a lot of things.  Sometimes they get them, sometimes they don't.  But to instigate a war against Saddam Hussein because he "sought" yellowcake from Niger is beyond flimsy.  Just as all the other excuses were.

        Would to God that somebody had called Bush into question about this statement, at the time.  We might not be in the mess we are in, now.

        And then, again, maybe not.  Bush was determined to invade Iraq, and would have found some other pretext for his "decision", had the discredited yellowcake claim failed.

        Bush marches to his own drumbeat.  I say we find the drummer, and shoot him in both hands, so he can no longer beat that disastrous, devastating drum.

        If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.~~Lewis Carroll

        by Molly Martinez on Thu Jan 25, 2007 at 08:49:16 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  True (0+ / 0-)

          "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

          That statement is not a whole cloth lie... technically.

          But it is crafted and was said in such a was as to imply that Saddam had the yellowcake.  They knew that people would only actually hear this:  "The British government ... Saddam Hussein ... uranium ."

          That statement was in close proximity to Condi and her mushroom remark.  Making the whole Saddam has nuke capability stick in people's minds, without actually having to say it.  

          It's a lie of intention.

    •  Why would Saddam be trying (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Ray Radlein, GN1927, green917

      to buy yellowcake when he had tons of the stuff already?

      And no facilities to turn it into anything?

    •  My understanding of the 1999 trip (3+ / 0-)

      by some Iraqi officials was that it was simply an attempt to set up general trade relations with a number of African countries.  It didn't have anything to do with trying to purchase yellowcake.  

      Most importantly, on the same trip, these officials visited other African countries as well for the same purpose.  That is, to set up general trade relations.  

      This is a fact that Hitchens has conveniently ignored.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site