Posted on 09/05/2006 11:38:24 AM PDT by johnny7
NOVEMBER 1, 1995 : (LIBYA : IRAQI SCIENTIST JA'AFAR DHIA JA'AFAR ARRIVES IN LIBYA TO LEAD A GROUP OF IRAQI PERSONNEL IN INSTALLING A NUCLEAR ENRICHMENT KILN) According to the Jerusalem Post, Iraqi nuclear scientist Ja'afar Dhia Ja'afar arrived in Libya to lead a group of experts and engineers from Iraqi military industries in installing a small nuclear enrichment kiln in the area of Sidi Abu Zarik, approximately 380 kilometers south of Tripoli.
The Iraq-Libya cooperation allegedly began with a secret visit by Ra'ad Id Aldafi, from Libyan military industries, to Baghdad on August 30, 1995. The Jerusalem Post goes on to say that contracts for Iraqi scientists to work in Libya were passed off as contracts for these scientists to lecture in Libyan universities and institutions.
Unnamed experts suggest that Iraqi nuclear fuel could reach Libya by sea within weeks, and that Iraqi experts in Libya could begin enriching it after installing more small or medium-sized kilns.
-------—Tom O'Dwyer, "Libya Helps Iraq Dodge Weapons Supervision," The Jerusalem Post, 1 November 1995.
Hey, Nation, maybe they just should have asked Bill Clinton what it was based on...or Al Gore....or Madelyn Albright....or Sandy Berger.
......Or did they just make it up for political reasons????
"But, just reading the bare facts of what Corn describes about her work, from 1997 in particular when she joins the counter terrorism division to just after 9/11, when she is put on the Joint Task Force On Iraq,
apparently the CIA had not, until then (2001) conducted any sustained and focused effort to verify the public claims that the CIA had been giving to two administrations about Saddams WMD programs, for almost a decade."
If there is any truth included in Corn's article, then someone or several people have grossly violated the Intelligence laws of the U.S. Anyone possessing knowledge of these facts who then shares them with another person/people is guilty of a felony subject to a now meaningless fine but also 10 years in the slammer. It's clearly stated in the document we all signed.
Green Lantern
And we all know the seriousness with which she took her job...recommending unqualified private citizens for what her supporters now describe as a critical mission.
Come the spring of 2001, she was in the CPD's modest Iraq branch. But that summer--before 9/11--word came down from the brass: We're ramping up on Iraq.
Sure they were ramping up, first apparently in response to Clinton's 8 years of neglect and second because we were embroiled in a sanction fight, with the usual suspects wanting them lifted and the Bush administration actually making noise about a compromise.
I don't know how Corn can write this stuff with a straight face.
Argh, I made a mistake. Jaffar Dhia Jaffar arrived in Libya in mid October 1995, not on November 1. Nov 1 is the date of the article.
FEBRUARY 13, 2005 : (IRAQ : IRAQI SCIENTIST IS ABDUCTED, IS KILLED DURING RESCUE ATTEMPT) An Iraqi scientist died in a shoot-out between gunmen and police in Al-Karkh as the police tried to rescue him from a gang of kidnappers, Al-Sharqiyah TV reported on 13 February. The Interior Ministry said the gunmen were later arrested and were found to members of a gang specialized in abducting and assassinating Iraqi scientists and university professors. ----- "Scientist dies in shoot-out, gang captured," (Al-Sharqiyah, Baghdad, in Arabic 13 Feb 05) via IRAQI NEWS, 13 Feb 05 via http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:pmmX55CCgjMJ:www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2005/02/imm-050214-unami.htm+%22iraqi+scientist%22+escape&hl=en
David Corn is upset because the Administration had contingency plans to go to war with Iraq? I'm be more upset if they HADN'T had such plans.
I don't think I said that electronic monitoring was the *only* thing. Whether or not we've put too many resources into electronic or not, per complaints by legislators & other government officials, I dunno, could be disinformation.
Thanks for the ping!
Corn could be a poster girly boy for my tagline.
Here's a takeaway:
Story says Plame was chief of operations from before 9/11 2001 to somewhere around the time of the Novak column (July 2003). In a Feb '03 LA Times Op-Ed Joe Wilson was still claiming Iraq had WMDs and would likely use them against US troops (his argument against an invasion).
The man who shared pillow talk with one of the highest ranking Iraq WMD counterproliferation experts thought they still had WMDs, ergo, she thought so too. Unless she was lying to him, or never talked shop with him (fat chance).
I'd say Valerie's "undercover career" ended when she went under covers with still-married Ambassador Blowhard Wilson and, after some "heavy necking" (his term) whispered ... "Can You keep a secret? I work for the CIA!".
David Corn- what a putz. Still trying to make it sound like the Bush/Cheney adminstration ignored good intelligence that Saddam was a pussy, when 99.9% of the world's all-source intelligence indicated that Saddam was in full WMD development/procurement mode.
When 50% of America already believed Rove/Cheney were at the bottom of this... it's easy to rewrite history to suit your needs... and make a buck at the same time.
Sounds to me like Plame arranged to have her husband sent to cover for her in case she had missed any evidence of Iraq WMD. More like the Plame CYA Case rather than Plame CIA Leak Case.
Also, it seems the only people who can be proven to have sought to 'twist' the facts about Iraq WMD were lib dem icons. How ironic, ha ha ha.
I am guessing that Corn believes that Plame and the others who spoke to him will not be prosecuted, either because the permanent bureacracy at CIA will not demand its political-appointed leaders issue such a request to the Attorney General or that if prosecuted their liberal lawyers and judges will get them off.
I am guessing that Corn, Plame et al actually believe that their running of a political agenda against the administration, from inside that administration amounts to "whistle blowing", in as much as the left tries to criminalize any political position of conservatives.
Plame and her husband and their friends had an honorable and professional position she could have taken. Resign, live with any secrets-revealing restrictions that were imposed on that resignation and go join the political jihad of the dims - without Wilson's phony trip, without his phony spin on the meaning of that trip, without the false importance given to the "forged documents", and without the political prosecution for outing Wilson as an imposter. But the honorable route would not have served as well the political agenda they were committed to.
As if anything these guys could say might be true.
"Reliance on electronic monitoring left us wide open to Chalabe's (sp) "insider info", as we hadn't developed operatives of our own. The CIA hadn't been properly reconfigured from its Cold War footing. I don't know if Bush 41 had begun to do a reconfiguration. Clinton reconfigured by creating a complicated maze, placing those loyal to him in key hubs in the flow of info."
Don't use the political scapegoat of Chalabi. He was neither the only, the primary or the most prolific supllier of intelligence, for over a decade, that supported the "Iraq has WMD's" positions. We were told many of the same things by the French, the British, the Saudis, the Jordanians, Egypt and others. Even in the last days before the war, Tommy Franks was personally warned by Jordan and Eqypt that they believed Saddam had WMDs and they expected Saddam to use Chemical WMDs on our troops.
The "Chalabi" mantra is a leftist inspired sideshow to deflect from just how extensively Saddam's deceptions had worked. He was a master at producing misinformation, even that misinformation confirmed that he had things he did not, and he preferred that his opponents did not really know the true WMD answers. The uncertain risks to his opponents were alot more powerful, for twelve years of "containment" than the truth. The post 9/11 world required the truth. He was not going to let us get to it. We ended the deception with the only route available.
My statement regarding Chalabi was about the political climate in Iraq, not the WMD. WMD were only a small part of our need to take down Saddam. My lament is that Chalabi was no Karzai.
We were told many of the same things by the French, the British, the Saudis, the Jordanians, Egypt and others. Even in the last days before the war, Tommy Franks was personally warned by Jordan and Eqypt that they believed Saddam had WMDs and they expected Saddam to use Chemical WMDs on our troops.
Correct. Hussein's past lies to the UN & the UN's failure to discover those lies on their own were enough to convince me of our need to verify Iraq's claims up close & personal. Leaving our military sitting in Kuwait, targets of Iraqi attacks for months while the UN inspectors pussyfooted around again? I don't think so.
The "Chalabi" mantra is a leftist inspired sideshow to deflect from just how extensively Saddam's deceptions had worked.
I'm not using the Chalabi "mantra" as any kind of leftist wet-dream. I did my research before we went in & I convinced myself we were doing the right thing. I have never waivered from that position. I "bought" into ten years of hard work there. Chalabi was an unfortunate speedbump, created in great part by the nature of the state Hussein ruled, where paranoia & disinformation ruled the day. If the American public had been told Iraq was going to be a ten year hard slog right from the get go, I think maintaining the support of the public wouldn't be as difficult as it seems to be. When we underestimate the difficulty, I'm less surprised about the public's skittishness.
He was a master at producing misinformation, even that misinformation confirmed that he had things he did not, and he preferred that his opponents did not really know the true WMD answers. The uncertain risks to his opponents were alot more powerful, for twelve years of "containment" than the truth. The post 9/11 world required the truth. He was not going to let us get to it. We ended the deception with the only route available.
We are on the same page about this.
"I am guessing that Corn believes that Plame and the others who spoke to him will not be prosecuted, either because the permanent bureacracy at CIA will not demand its political-appointed leaders issue such a request to the Attorney General or that if prosecuted their liberal lawyers and judges will get them off.
I am guessing that Corn, Plame et al actually believe that their running of a political agenda against the administration, from inside that administration amounts to "whistle blowing", in as much as the left tries to criminalize any political position of conservatives.
Plame and her husband and their friends had an honorable and professional position she could have taken. Resign, live with any secrets-revealing restrictions that were imposed on that resignation and go join the political jihad of the dims - without Wilson's phony trip, without his phony spin on the meaning of that trip, without the false importance given to the "forged documents", and without the political prosecution for outing Wilson as an imposter. But the honorable route would not have served as well the political agenda they were committed to."
~~
Could be. Thx for your reasoned response. I can't disagree with the possibilities you raise. Salud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.