Skip to main content

Christopher Hitchens is apparently taking advantage of his increasingly infrequent periods of sobriety by continuing to write articles for Slate justifying his initial support of the Iraq War.  In his latest he argues that Iraq did, in fact, seek to purchase uranium from Niger in the form of yellowcake.

The good folks at RedState, led by Mark Kilmer, are using this as evidence to promulgate their JoeWilsonLiedAndOutedHisOwnWife™ worldview.

So what's really going on here?  Follow me below the fold.

First, let's start off by quoting Hitchens' article.

In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein's long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president's State of the Union address in January 2003.

How many problems can you find in this paragraph?  I'll name you a couple.

Problem 1: If you're interested in clandestinely purchasing material with which you intend to build a nuclear bomb under the nose of U.N. inspectors, I find it highly unlikely that you would send your top envoy with nuclear expertise on a multi-day official visit with a country known for nothing but uranium ore.  This leaves us with two options: either the Ba'athists were not concerned about secrecy, or they weren't there to negotiate a uranium purchase.

Problem 2: "the disclosure appeared in watered-down...form in the President's State of the Union address." Did it now?  Because last time I checked, the only thing Christopher Hitchens came up with is that Zawahie went to Niger.  I didn't see Christopher Hitchens proving that there was an attempted purchase, much less an actual agreement.  And yet, those famous 16 words in the SotU address were:

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

Say it with me loud and clear: CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS IS LYING.

Let's move on to another part of Hitchens' continuous act of desperation--the forgery part.

A NATO investigation has identified two named employees of the Niger Embassy in Rome who, having sold a genuine document about Zahawie to Italian and French intelligence agents, then added a forged paper in the hope of turning a further profit. The real stuff went by one route to Washington, and the fakery, via an Italian journalist and the U.S. Embassy in Rome, by another. The upshot was--follow me closely here--that a phony paper alleging a deal was used to shoot down a genuine document suggesting a connection.

OK.  In that case, then, where the heck is the genuine document?  It's hilarious to me how the Conservative factions ridiculed the "the document is fake, but the content is real" meme that was used for the Bush TANG documents, only to have Hitchens pull this one right here.  Notice how Hitchens very carefully says "a genuine document about Zawahie."  He doesn't mention what the document says or what it proves--nor does he mention why, if the "real stuff went to Washington" as he claims, the real stuff hasn't turned up yet--because given Bush's declassification of the NIE, you can bet that anything at all that our government had that could be used to disprove Joe Wilson's editorial would have been leaked to the public at some point.

But everything I've written about Hitchens here, despite how repulsive it may be, doesn't get to the heart of a larger question: Why are we talking about yellowcake from Niger at all?

You see, Iraq already had several hundred tons of low-enriched uranium yellowcake within its borders just 30 miles south of Baghdad at Tuwaitha.  After the 1991 Gulf War, the IAEA decided that this material was so dangerous that they...LEFT IT IN IRAQ UNDER SEAL FOR SAFE KEEPING.  Why?  Because--let's not get too technical here--it's damn hard to get bomb-ready fissile material from yellowcake.  You need a variety of sophisticated equipment, none of which Iraq had or was allowed to get.  (Your other option for why the IAEA left the material in Iraq is because they hate America and want to see the world destroyed--but I'll leave that decision up to you.)

So, the point remains once again: given that Iraq already had 500 tons of yellowcake in their country, why the heck would they have needed more from Niger?  And if they did want more from Niger for some reason, why go about it in such a stupid fashion?

And as a last little parting shot--while Christopher Hitchens and his merry band of neoconservative followers invaded Iraq and got over 2,300 of our soldiers killed, tens of thousands of Iraqis killed, and spent hundreds of billions of precious tax dollars getting us bogged down in an occupation based primarily on the speculation of what was discussed on an envoy's trip to Niger--while all that was going on, a nation that engages in "death to America" protests every year on the anniversary of its revolution has started enriching uranium right under your noses--and the posturing of the neocon PNAC crew has left us powerless to do anything sensible about it.

So in conclusion--thank you, Christopher Hitchens.  What spectacular colossal foreign policy failure would you like to try your hand at justifying next?

[Cross-posted at Far-Shooting Politics]

Originally posted to Dante Atkins: the author formerly known as hekebolos on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:51 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Apparently Hitchen's application for citizenship (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raatz, joynow, Stray Roots

    has been lost at Immigration.  There must be a god somewhere looking out for us.

  •  Hitchens sees a yellowcake deal? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raatz, Vitarai

    Yeah, sure.  And the Iraqis were going to transport it back on a caravan of pink elephants.

    Joe Wilson neatly stuffed this story last night on Olbermann.  KO, in asking about it to set Wilson up, referred to Hitchens' reporting as "occasionally accurate," or words to that effect.

    -4.50, -5.85 In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. --Orwell

    by Dallasdoc on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:56:01 PM PDT

    •  He saw it hiding behind (0+ / 0-)

      the pink elaphanant in his living room.

      "I was Rambo in the disco. I was shootin' to the beat. When they burned me in effigy. My vacation was complete." Neil Young. Mideast Vacation.

      by Mike S on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 04:59:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But he has a British accent (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jamfan, Stray Roots

    and speaks so condescendingly.  He must be right.

  •  Not just Hitchens. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joynow, zenbot

    I swear, but can't prove, I've heard this talking point revived by at least 3 Thugs in the last 4 days, that we really do have proof that Sadaam was trying to buy yellowcake.

    Maybe it's in that document dump that they're letting the red meat bloggers sift through.

  •  Hitchens is guilty as you charge (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HL Mungo, ybruti, howth of murph

    but I feel that his story is tragic.  I don't know if he is a drunk or not, but I do know that he is brilliant.  I was a big fan of his when he advocated the indictment of Henry Kissinger as a war criminal.  I was less impressed with his assault on Clinton, and now I just think that he is too proud to admit that he fucked up in advocating a war that has turned into disaster.  I kind of feel sorry for him.  I'll probably still read whatever he writes because I am impressed with articulate writers, even if I do not agree with them.  Hitchens was, at one time, far to the left of most of us.  In fact, I think he still considers himself a Marxist in the humanist, not economic or civil libertarian sense.  Maybe not, since his financial success derived from bashing Clinton and supporting Bush.

    •  I don't know. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mimi, HL Mungo, joynow, howth of murph

      The more I read and hear him, the more convinced I am that he in fact stands for no particular agenda, and simply tries his best to be a prick. He seems to enjoy the attention granted from being consistently insufferable.

      I just finished rereading Animal Farm, from a 2003 edition in which Hitchens provided an introduction. He managed to tie it and 1984 into the looming Iraq War in ways that would make your head hurt. What an ego, to take a giant work of literature and simply use it as a hat to be placed on your own helium-inflated head.

      How he can be an expert in so many things, and draw from every one of them the most absurd of self-serving, self-congratulatory conclusions, is astounding. The idiot is never too far from the savant, with that one.

  •  Problem 3 (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    HL Mungo, joynow, ybruti, Stray Roots

    Iraq already had yellow cake.

    Iraq retains approximately two-and-a-half tomes of 2.5 percent enriched uranium oxide, which the IAEA permits. This low-enriched material could be used as feed material to produce enough HEU for about two nuclear weapons.

    And

    Iraq has about 550 metric tons of yellowcake* and low-enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by the IAEA.

    I hope it's not lost on the reader that this info came from PNAC. Of course the administration could not admit this information because it would appear the IAEA was doing its job.

    This is why Bushco cooked up a story about more yellowcake and aluminum tubes.

  •  Redstate... (0+ / 0-)

    would rather have someone who breaks the law (DeLay) in office than a democrat.

    And the funny thing is that the person who advocated that position wasn't banned from the site.  Yet I made a subtle snark at Bush talking to God and was banned instantly.

    They really really do believe that republicans are Americans and democrats aren't.

    •  Redstate (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      seanleckey

      Has degenerated lately to a serious echo chamber.  Not that DailyKos doesn't have echo chamber qualities, but at least there is disagreement and debate amongst the readers (even it if is only on the liberal side).  At RS, any disagreement with the editors is subject to banning.

      But then again, republicans have always been better at message control.  The scary thing is that everyone is "on message" even behind the curtain.

      k

  •  Further de-bunk (0+ / 0-)

    1998 is not 'recently'

    And how, from one meeting where uranium was not mentioned, do you get 'sought to purchase substantial quantities'?  Was it when the Iraqi rep asked for a second cup of tea?  The three lumps of sugar?

    But the real debunk is what Wilson reported:  The Niger mines were under strict foreign control.  Iraq could send their biggest bridge guy to Brooklyn to buy the bridge, but that doesn't mean that the sale of the Brooklyn Bridge is an imminent threat

  •  Two things (0+ / 0-)
    1.  Is he serious about the huge connection between 1981 and 1999?  18 years?  
    1.  I believe Wilson was asked specifically about Zahawie this week (either on Olberman last night or This Week on Sunday) and he knew exactly why he was there in 1999 and dismissed it like swatting a fly.  

    "Think of the press as a great keyboard on which the government can play." - Joseph Goebbels

    by gerbbils on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:33:53 PM PDT

  •  Excellent & Important Diary (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joynow

    The forms of defense over the years in the Plame case is to somehow claim that the administration was trying to correct the record in bashing Joe Wilson. Usually it focuses on the addendum to a Senate intelligence report that was written by GOP Senators and trashes Wilson. The wingnuts love to say that the report was bipartisan but that particular element was not. Senator Rockefellor shit in the bed in letting it be put in the report. A Salon article that Wilson wrote basically rebuts the trash in the addendum.

    The wingnuts did not have to rely on that in this latest flare up in the Plame saga. The drunk fuck Hitchens gave them some fresh material to work with. Going through the travelogues of Iraq officials and citizens in the years prior to 2003 has been a tool used by the extreme neoconservatives to cite that there was a solid connection and a working relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam. Hitchens decided to take this approach to the Niger issue. La Rouche would think Hitchens links are shaky.

    You've done a great job in ripping it apart. I'd love to see it make the rec list. My guess is after the wingnuts work the Hitchen piece to death, they will switch to the Senate report. It might wait until the next Plame flare up. It would be great if it was another Fitz indictment.

    This kind of crap is not being bought by most of the public. It is out there to keep the GOP base from accepting the reality of the national security breach that their favorite policymakers brought about.

     

    •  In fact the addendum (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      HL Mungo, Viceroy

      accusing Wilson was signed by only 3 of the 18 Senators: Roberts, Bond, and Hatch.

      It's disturbing how rarely that is pointed out by the interviewer or others on a panel when they spin what the Senate intelligence report said. It was not just a minority of the committee but a minority of the Republicans willing to sign that.

      The spin should be met with that fact every single time. No excuse that it is not.

  •  A few points... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joynow
    It is not exactly accurate to say that Niger is only known for uranium.  While exportation of minerals, especially uranium, is the leading export industry, there are many other goods and commodities produced there, including millet, sorghum, rice, cotton and peanuts and there is also a lot of animal husbandry.  Niger also exports peanut oil, other processed foods, beer, cotton textiles and cement.

    Moreover, the control of the Niger mining interests is by no means completely under the ownership and control of the government, although export licenses and other approvals are necessary.  Historically, the mining interests were under French control, but Japanese, U.S. German and other European participation has increased steadily since the 1970's.  Meeting with a minister could certainly not, in and of itself, constitute a purchase of uranium.  Deals would have to be cut with the companies themselves and then governmental approval would be sought.  Perhaps one meeting could have been the start of a process, but if it were me, I'd go to the owners of the uranium first.

    Joe Wilson, as alluded to in an above post, dealt with this on Olbermann last night.  The official in question was actually on a worldwide tour to try to convince heads of state and government from around the world to visit Iraq in defiance of the sanctions.  Meetings with Ministers was more likely to have been about that subject rather than what Mr. Hitchens assumes.

    It is my view that Mr. Hitchens has no real evidence, but it doesn't really matter.  THERE WERE NO WMD's!!!!  Even if the meetings concerned uranium, they didn't lead to anything.  You don't attack a country because, years before, they had an unproductive meeting.

    Bush lied in the SOTU and about just about everything else.  Everyone knows it.  Mr. Hitchens is pissing in the wind.

    Let justice reign though the heavens tremble

    by Viceroy on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 06:54:50 PM PDT

  •  Hitchins is a drunk... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joynow

    Why the fuck do they keep putting this drunk on television? Are the owners of the MSM so entralled with  his racist NeoCon views? Send this idiot to rehab...

  •  Why is Hitchens concerned with Baghdad Bob? (0+ / 0-)
    Remember the guy who looked the TV in the eye, saying that the Americans were no where near Baghdad, even as our bombs could be seen on camera blowing up the bridges in the background? That was Zawahie. Why would anyone believe anything Zawahie said? And now, what on earth is Hitchens thinking?

    The real problem is that it was Iran that went to Niger to get the yellowcake as reported in the Washington Post, and I keep waiting for some administration person to reveal, 'Oh, no. We got it wrong. It was IRAN that went to Niger for yellowcake.  Let's go to war.'

    Someone here once calculated how large a load 400 tons of yellow cake are - something like 20 40-foot containers. Not something one steals from the corner store. But this is all old, why is Hitchens messing with it?

    What the President says is executive privilege is nothing but executive poppycock. -Sam Ervin

    by sailmaker on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 07:20:24 PM PDT

  •  Wilson (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joynow

    Here is what Wilson had to say last night.

    OLBERMANN: Is that the same story as this, that was purported online today by Christopher Hitchens, whose reporting is on occasion very sound, he wrote that in February of ‘99, a man named Wisam al-Zahawari, Zahaiwai, excuse me...

    WILSON: Zahawi.

    OLBERMANN: ... Zahawi, was the Iraqi representative at that point of the International Atomic Energy Agency, paid an official visit to Niger. He doesn‘t come out and explicitly say that that trip in ‘99 was to seek uranium, but his headline does. It reads, “Sorry, everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger.” Is there merit to the Hitchens story?

    WILSON: No. Mr. Al-Zahawi, Wisam al-Zahawi, who is a man that I know from my time as the acting ambassador in Baghdad during the first Gulf War, in the first Bush administration. He was ambassador to the Vatican, and he made a trip in 1999 to several West and Central African countries for the express purpose of inviting chiefs of state to violate the ban on travel to Iraq.

    He has said repeatedly to the press, he‘s now in retirement, and also to the International Atomic Energy Agency, to their satisfaction, that uranium was not on his agenda.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...

  •  the 'genuine' document (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    joynow, Viceroy

    We are going to keep hearing the new right wing talking  points until the London Sunday Times article cited by Hitchens is debunked.

    The claims in that article that specifically need to be debunked are that, in addition to the forged contract, there was a "genuine" document, namely:

    a letter purporting to be from al-Zahawie relating to a visit to Niger in 1999 to discuss the possible supply of uranium. This did not constitute evidence that Niger had agreed to supply yellowcake but it did indicate Saddam was trying to obtain it.

    According to the Sunday Times, this document is "genuine" because the Butler inquiry deemed it "credible."  The Sunday Times also claims that this document was "obtained" by the French sometime in 2002, and was then passed by the French to the Brittish MI6.  Because the French asked the Brits to protect their source, the Sunday Times says, the CIA was told that "Iraq had tried to obtain yellowcake from Niger but not about the actual letter."

    Makes it seem like the CIA didn't have anything other than the Brittish reports until much later on, doesn't it?

    Now read this English translation of an article that appeared on December 1, 2005 in La Repubblica (a leading Italian newspaper).  (The translation I've provided above appeared in a diary by rom wyo, who said it was originally posted at Eurotrib and Booman.)

    Alain Chouet wants to put in the right sequence dates and protagonists. A substantial correction: the `Nigergate' prologue was staged in the summer 2001, before September 11th, at the hands of the CIA.

    "Early in the summer 2001, the CIA passed us a piece of information both general and alarming. `Iraq' - Langley warned - `is apparently trying to purchase uranium from an African country'. The Americans added that they had been put on the alert by a trip, dating back two years, of the Iraqi ambassador to the Holy See to [several] Central-African nations. As standard procedure, the Americans never reveal the source of their information. Washington did not mention Niger but, in more general terms, Africa. The U.S. knew that not a leaf stirs in the African francophone ex-colonies that the French aren't aware of, especially in the field of counter-proliferation. For that matter, that information, though general, wasn't just routine for us. From the Gulf War (1991) onwards, France could not afford to be accused of underestimating Saddam Hussein's rearmament programs. Therefore, when the Americans moved in the summer 2001, I rolled up my sleeves. I instructed my men to get to work in Africa. In Niger, obviously, but also in Namibia (you will soon understand why). The outcome was entirely negative. At the end of August 2001, the alert died down.  After the attack against the Towers, between September 2001 and the spring of the following year, that piece of information about the uranium from Niger was once again an indistinct and irrelevant background noise. Then something happened..."

    This is what happened according to the Sismi. On September 21st 2001, Admiral Gianfranco Battelli (Pollari's predecessor) sent a cable to Langley with news of a mission `of Iraqi staff to Niger, which took place in 1999. On that trip questions were asked as to the production of uranium ore in the country's two mines and on the mode of exportation of that material'. On October 15th of the same year, Nicolò Pollari took office at Sismi. On October 18th, with a letter one and a half pages long, Pollari explained to the CIA that `the news on Niger come from a reliable source, even though we cannot evaluate its quality'. In February and March 2002, two more reports confirming the Niger lead of Saddam's atomic re-armament came to Langley from a `foreign Service'. Sismi claimed it was `French information'. Chouet smiles.

    "No, things did not go that way. The CIA knocked on our door once again, with the story of the uranium, only in late spring 2002. The end of April, I would say, beginning of May (therefore after the February and March reports). This time their request had high-priority urgency (on February 2002, Vice-President Dick Cheney demanded the CIA to get information, after receiving a report from the DIA confirming the Iraqi purchase of 500 tons per year of uranium from Niger). Compared to the summer of the previous year, the Americans were more precise. They named a country, Niger. [And] gave a number of details. They actually handed us all the information which only later we found - and I'm stressing `only later found' -  were in Rocco Martino's dossier and which we had never heard about till then. As standard procedure, Langley held back the source. They did not mention Martino or Sismi. They simply asked us to check that stuff. Langley's pressure was strong. The CIA asked for an immediate answer about the authenticity of the information. Immediately after September 11th, the relations between Dgse and the CIA were excellent (these good relations have always been questioned by Italy) and therefore I arranged a `deep undercover' mission. Between the end of May and June 2002, `my men' were in Njamey, the capital of Niger. The mission - as arranged by the Dgse operative directions - was held back from our Foreign Office as well as from the whole diplomatic network".

    In  Niger the Dgse men found nothing at all, nothing different from what had already been found by ex-Ambassador Joseph Wilson, whom the CIA had sent to Njamey in February.

    "Five of our best men were part of the team. With a deep knowledge of Niger and of all the issues connected to yellowcake. My men stayed in Africa for a couple of weeks and, once back, they told me a very simple thing: `the American information on uranium is all bullshit'. When I read their report, I did not doubt their work nor, if you let me say so, my mind. I know Niger well but I can say that I have known Baghdad and Saddam even better. And I know that if Saddam had wanted to purchase yellowcake (which he already owned in great quantities) from Niger he would have never asked an Ambassador to open negotiations. Saddam did not trust anybody in his Foreign Office. He certainly didn't trust his ambassadors around the world. For such a task he would have sent one of his sons. On the other hand, we knew the reason of the journey of Iraqi Ambassador to the Holy See, Wissam Al Zahawie. He had to identify an African country ready to accept the storage of the regime's  hazardous toxic waste, in exchange for money. In fact Namibia, which had been used as a dumping ground by Iraq, had told Baghdad they couldn't go on contaminating their soil. I told the CIA the results of our mission in Niger. The Americans seemed very disappointed for what they had to hear. I understood then the reasons for their frustration and I understood them even better when the CIA, not content with the result, at the end of June 2002, sent us a part of the documents of the Niger dossier, as if they wanted to underline the reasons for their insistence".

    We are at a crucial point. End of June 2002. Langley sent a part of the Niger documents to Paris. Which documents? According to the Italian and American reconstruction, those documents were not yet in the hands of the CIA nor had they ever been in the hands of the Sismi.

    "If what I'm saying surprises you, I can't help it. I tell you I received a `sample' of those documents in the summer 2002 from Langley. They sent the sealed envelope to Paris through the usual intelligence channels. I can remember they were no more than a dozen pages. There was a short introduction where the CIA explained the meaning of the documents and no more than three complete documents, I would say. After a quick scrutiny we decided it was all rubbish. Gross fakes. The document which struck me most referred to the Iraqi Ambassador to the Holy See. Reading that page, I thought back to the odd and general request of the summer 2001 and wondered: `Hey, the Americans... they have had this stuff for one year and they tell us only now, after we have already been to Niger twice'. Anyway the Americans didn't say who they got that stuff from, then or later. But we discovered things ourselves. We may be French but not altogether that stupid. First of all, those documents, as far as one could read, led to the Niger Embassy in Rome. And we definitely know where Rome is. Besides, on those same days when the CIA handed down to us part of the documents, this gentleman appeared. A Rocco Martino, your fellow countryman".

    According to Sismi, Rocco Martino has been a Dgse agent at least since 2000. He had his office in Luxembourg with a covering firm, the Security Development Organization, Intelligence Office at  no. 3, Rue Hoel, Sandweiler. So, Rocco Martino worked for Chouet, according to our Intelligence. He handed the fake Niger documents to Dgse, as reported by Gianni Letta to Parliament, even before September 11th. To confirm the circumstance, Sismi gave the press a photo of Rocco Martino talking `in Brussels' with a French agent, whose name was also given, Jacques Nadal.

    "This story about Rocco Martino working for us is just a falsehood. The first time he knocked on our door was at the end of June 2002. He said he had important documents about an illicit trade of uranium from Niger to Iraq and asked one hundred thousand dollars for the stuff. Now, I'm too used to Arab souks to swallow bait like that. So I told my people to tell him we would look at the stuff first and then, if we were interested, we would discuss the price. This is how things went. Martino turned up at our Embassy in Luxembourg and asked to talk to some of our people. I asked Jaques Nadal, at the Brussels station, to meet the Italian in Luxembourg. Nadal met him at the end of June 2002".

    What's going on here???

    I used to live in the United States of America. Now I live in a homeland.

    by homeland observer on Tue Apr 11, 2006 at 08:37:13 PM PDT

  •  Great diary... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hekebolos

    One small piece of constructive criticism:  Hopefully I won't sound grumpy or nitpicky, but I think you really should reconsider your choice of redfont in the block quotes.  Maybe I'm alone in this, but colored blockquotes are almost impossible for me to read without getting a pounding headache and thus diminish your otherwise excellent work.  Just a thought.

  •  RedState brought me here - Thankfully (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    seanleckey

    Like many Kos visitors, I'm sure many of you visit RedState here and there to see what our fellow countrymen with an affinity for bombast, unnecessary wars, using Jesus and the bible to bash gays, and so on are chatting about (with no swearing, mind you, that would be in poor taste!). The Hitchens piece was the subject of a diary and a commenter noted that the diary had generated a parallel diary here on Kos (isn't this sharing thing cute). So here I am.

    And it's amazing at how one poorly reported article by Hitchens - which was basically just rehashing the Financial Times article - could solidify for them that Bush Didn't Lie(TM). Logic flies out the window. None of the purely logical questions raised here about where the original document is (Karl Rove is a genius, right? So surely if the administration had a real document that showed Iraq was all set to buy uranium from Niger - or even making a blatant attempt to set the wheels of such a transaction in motion - he would have said, 'Hey, let's leak it to Novak/Hitchens/OTHER SHILL HERE,' wouldn't he?), why the admin would later disavow the 16 words, etc.

    But not a freakin' peep about selective leaks and mobile weapons labs over there. Wankers!

    'The war is over,' so said the speaker, with the flight suit on. Maybe to him I'm just a pawn, so he can advance. ... All I wanna do is dance.

    by Whigsboy on Wed Apr 12, 2006 at 12:01:09 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site