Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Celtjew Libertarian; Wolfstar
The big one is whether Wilson's initial report on yellowcake reliable?

Wilson's only written report is the one that appeared in the New York Times. And it is itself an extended falsehood on several levels.

First lie is his claim to have "investigated" the issue of uranium sales, which he and the press have repeated hundreds of times lately, yet if you read the fine print of his article he makes it clear that he did no investigating whatever. He merely asked the government of Niger if they had made any illegal sales lately, and took their word for it when they said "no". He proceeded to accuse the president of lying based on an investigation that never happened, in other words. So that is lie #1.

His second lie is his verbal sleight of hand, in which he answers a charge that the president never made. His case is that Niger denies that a deal took place; but of course Bush never said a deal took place, he said that Iraq "sought" uranium, not that they obtained it. And the fact that they "sought" uranium isn't even controversial. Their trade mission to Niger is public knowledge. It was unnecessary to travel to Niger to confirm the president's charge, since the trade mission by Zahawie was no secret.

His third lie, then, is that lie of omission, in which he failed to mention the trade mission by senior Iraqi ambassador Zahawie, well known for publicly calling for Iraq to develop nuclear arms. The president's charge does not rest on secret MI6 reports, or faked Italian documents, or French intel that they refuse to divulge, Iraq's trade mission to Niger is public information. It is not even in question. He failed to mention it because he couldn't mention it and continue to attack the president, this simple fact blows a hole in his argument that no one could miss.

His fourth lie was to claim that the mines were so well monitored by the IAEA that an illicit sale would be impossible. But the IAEA says that they are undermanned, and that they lack the legal basis to properly monitor the mines in Niger. Which means that it isn't happening, which means he lied again.

But it can't be stressed enough that there was no investigation. Wilson never followed any trucks, he didn't stake out the port in Benin, he didn't interview any drivers, he didn't audit company records, he didn't polygraph the company accountant, he didn't tap the mine company phones... He self-admittedly did none of that. He simply parroted the official story and cloaked it in a CIA wrapper, and has been hawking it ever since. It would be embarrassing if he or the press that are his enablers were capable of embarrassment.

52 posted on 10/02/2003 10:19:03 AM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies ]


To: marron
Outstanding analysis, Marron. Thank you for adding it to this thread. Wilson's Niger trip is one of the real mysteries in this saga since it was unnecessary and, as you point out so well, he did nothing much while he was there. He also didn't get himself worked up contemporaneously with reports of the Iraq-Niger connection when they surfaced in Blair's dossier and Bush's SOUA. Rather, some months later, working with Pincus, he sneakily created an excuse to insert himself into the SOUA controversy by writing that New York Times article. I believe the "outing" of his wife was a not-unpredictable happenstance — probably just a useful (from his point of view) byproduct of his attempt to discredit the President's rationale for going to war in Iraq.
74 posted on 10/02/2003 11:39:06 AM PDT by Wolfstar (NO SECURITY = NO ECONOMY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson