Booman Tribune

Smoking Gun Memo Proves Wilson Was Right

by BooMan
Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 10:33:11 AM EST

The Washington Post reports this morning on a smoking gun that proves once and for all that the White House knew full well that the Intelligence Community had no confidence in the Niger uranium story prior to the President reading the famous 16 words in the 2003 State of the Union address.

Here is what we already knew. On October 7, 2002 George Tenet interceded to make sure that a reference to Niger was taken out of a Presidential speech in Cincinnati. When Condoleezza Rice was asked (on July 13, 2003), why the reference reappeared in the SOTU, she responded:

When we got to the State of the Union, there were -- first of all, a lot of time had passed, several months. There were reports in the NIE about other African countries. There was the British report that talked about the efforts to get uranium in Africa.

The British, by the way, still stand by their report to this very day in its accuracy, because they tell us that they had sources that were not compromised in any way by later, in March or April, later reports that there were some forgeries.

Now, we have said very clearly that the information went in on the basis of a number of sources, but we have a different standard for presidential speeches, which is that we don't just put in things that are in intelligence sources. We put in things that we believe the intelligence agency has high confidence in, and that's why we have a clearance process.

But the Post reveals some crucial facts that explode Rice's rationalizations. First, the Niger allegations reappeared in a December 19, 2003 State Department 'fact sheet. This 'fact sheet' concerned the Pentagon and led them to seek clarification in case they might feel the need to reevaluate their relationship with the Niger government.

...the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the National Intelligence Council, the senior coordinating body for the 15 agencies that then constituted the U.S. intelligence community. Did Iraq and Niger discuss a uranium sale, or not? If they had, the Pentagon would need to reconsider its ties with Niger.

The council's reply, drafted in a January 2003 memo by the national intelligence officer for Africa, was unequivocal: The Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest. Four U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge said in interviews that the memo, which has not been reported before, arrived at the White House as Bush and his highest-ranking advisers made the uranium story a centerpiece of their case for the rapidly approaching war against Iraq.

The Post also noted that Rice's appeal to "[t]he British, by the way, still stand by their report" has since been proven groundless.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story.

This may all sound like old news. And to those of us that have been both paying attention and unwilling to swallow the kool-aid, none of this comes as much of a surprise. After all, we have already learned from the head of MI6 that the 'facts were being fixed around the policy'. And the Washington Post reported back on September 29, 2003 about the efforts of Hadley, Libby, and Cheney to manipulate the intelligence in Powell's report to the UN on February 5th, 2003.

Powell’s presentation was aimed at convincing the world of Iraq’s ties to terrorists and its pursuit of chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. On Jan. 25, with a stack of notebooks at his side, color-coded with the sources for the information, Libby laid out the potential case against Iraq to a packed White House situation room. ‘We read [their proposal to include Atta] and some of us said, Wow! Here we go again,’ said one official who helped draft the speech. ‘You write it. You take it out, and then it comes back again.’ ... [Some] officials present said they felt that Libby’s presentation was over the top, that the wording was too aggressive and most of the material could not be used in a public forum. Much of it, in fact, unraveled when closely examined by intelligence analysts from other agencies and, in the end, was largely discarded.”

So, even if we are not surprised it is still a major reveleation to have our suspicions so strongly confirmed. "Four U.S. officials with firsthand knowledge said in interviews that [a National Intelligence Council] memo...[that stated unequivocally that the Niger allegations were groundless] arrived at the White House as Bush and his highest-ranking advisers made the uranium story a centerpiece of their case for the rapidly approaching war against Iraq.

And they went ahead and kept the uranium as the centerpiece of their case. Game. Set. Match.

Wilson was right. Will the right-wing bloggers apologize? Will America care?



Display:
Well, you know that the right-wing bloggers will never apologise.  As to whether America cares, I fear that the most difficult thing will be to make sure that as many Americans as possible hear about this.  Only a tiny minority read WaPo or NYT, and I suspect the story is unlikely to get very good TV news coverage...

If the blogs keep hammering it, then perhaps some more main-stream journalists will pick it up.

I presume you were asking rhetorical questions???

by canberra boy (canberraboy1 at gmail dot com) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 10:43:35 AM EST
All I can do is put it out there.  Getting the MSM to care seems like an almost insurmountable obstacle.  But, things like this are somewhat unpredictable.
by BooMan on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 12:08:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]
This is part of the story that needs broad dissemintation if we want to abort the future attack on Iran.  Everything possible must be done in the next few weeks to help the media cover stories related to 2003 Iraq.  The more people realize that the entire administration intentionally lied to them on Iraq, the more they will be receptive to the message that the Iran posturing is the same thing.
by Shalimar (srbaxley@yahoo.com) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 10:50:52 AM EST
They've been hiding behind that British Report for too, too long.

"The British, by the way, still stand by their report to this very day in its accuracy, because they tell us that they had sources that were not compromised in any way"

 Did Blair help us fix the intel, cheating, as he and Bush led us into war?  Lives have been put at risk. Let's see that memo. If the NIE can be declassified, so can the Brit memo.  

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 02:16:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]
More powerful evidence of their dublicity and treason. I hope it helps but we don't have much time. They must be stopped!
by Jaded Prole (partisanpoet@excite.com) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 10:51:35 AM EST
Booman, I've been listening all morning to see if anyone on the Sunday shows has picked up what you did about Miller having the NIE information back in 2002. I was hoping that maybe Wilson would be the one to say something on ABC - but nothing yet.

I can't wait for the celebration we'll all have here when that finally gets picked up by the MSM. You da man!!!

Doesn't information itself have a liberal bias? Steven Colbert

by NLinStPaul on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 11:26:57 AM EST
My sense is that most of the people now turning against the war in the polls don't really care about the war itself or why we got into it. I think they're turning against it simply because they're sick and tired of hearing about it everyday and they're mad a t the bush regime for not diong a better job of taking care of it all so they wouldn't be confronted with the unpleasantness of it all day in and day out for all these years.

In short, many simply resent the fact that the war is still going on and it intrudes upon their carefully crafted little bubbles of delusion in which they live.

So, in answer to your question; "Do Americans really care [about the false claims by BushCo], sadly I have to say, "Mostly they do not"!

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.

by sbj on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 11:30:17 AM EST
I have to agree.  The why or how will likely receive minimal notice from most people.  It is the dragging on and daily death count that gets most people's attention.


Oh, there you are, Perry. -Phineas -SLB-
by boran2 (blogistan@yahoo.com) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 11:53:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It's not just that they are tired of still hearing about the war. It is that they keep hearing how we are winning the war, they keep hearing the same set of stories from the administration for over three years now, and there is still no resolution.

How do we keep winning the war in Iraq and yet it not only never ends, the news keeps getting worse? Even the hard-liners are beginning to question the stories that we are winning in Iraq, and the logical conclusion is that we AREN'T winning there.

Logically, if we aren't winning, then we are losing. That's what people are reacting to. Americans HATE losing.

Proud Democrats do not appear on FOX News!

Visit Whiskey Tango Foxtrot - over

by Rick B2 (jayray21athotmaildotcom) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 12:19:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]
You're right. The cognitive dissonance created by constantly claiminvg success in the face of overwhewlming evidence to the contrary will wear anyone out.

Cults regularly use the deliberate cultivation of cognitive dissonance to breakdown the psychological autonomy of their followers in order to make them more easily manipulated and in order to get these folowers to turn over their own decisionmaking authority to the cult leaders. BushCo works this way too except that they miscalculated the dysfunctionality of their own actions vis a vis Iraq, and so now, after 3 years, the particular cognitive dissonance they so successfully implanted in the public mind originally is now backfiring on them, because you can't keep pitching the same dissonant nonsense to the same people for that long without them finally getting sick of it.

Denial is our most dangerous adversary.

by sbj on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 02:36:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I read that link to article "A 'Concerted Effort' to Discredit Bush Critic"..

So what's with the Sunday Wapo editorial, blaming Wilson and fudging facts?, same edition btw;

"A Good Leak"
President Bush declassified some of the intelligence he used to decide on war in Iraq. Is that a scandal
???

[..]The material that Mr. Bush ordered declassified established, as have several subsequent investigations, that Mr. Wilson was the one guilty of twisting the truth. In fact, his report supported the conclusion that Iraq had sought uranium.

After more than 2 1/2 years of investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald has reported no evidence to support Mr. Wilson's charge. In last week's court filings, he stated that Mr. Bush did not authorize the leak of Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Libby's motive in allegedly disclosing her name to reporters, Mr. Fitzgerald said, was to disprove yet another false assertion, that Mr. Wilson had been dispatched to Niger by Mr. Cheney. In fact Mr. Wilson was recommended for the trip by his wife. Mr. Libby is charged with perjury, for having lied about his discussions with two reporters. Yet neither the columnist who published Ms. Plame's name, Robert D. Novak, nor Mr. Novak's two sources have been charged with any wrongdoing.

As Mr. Fitzgerald pointed out at the time of Mr. Libby's indictment last fall, none of this is particularly relevant to the question of whether the grounds for war in Iraq were sound or bogus.
 It's unfortunate that those who seek to prove the latter would now claim that Mr. Bush did something wrong by releasing for public review some of the intelligence he used in making his most momentous decision.

[emphasis added]


I need to discover on what planet does this person reside.
Nothing Wrong? Just being fair and balanced.
You're guilty of sucking up. Really you are.

And do hurry to correct your mistatement of facts.

 

Well, "You can't vote for war and disown the results"

by idredit on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 12:12:58 PM EST


Display:
Go to: [ Booman Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]
Menu
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password





Find textbooks at Alibris!

NOTE: Overstock bests Amazon's prices and is "blue."

THE BOOKS WITH "BUZZ":
______________

Senator Edward M. Kennedy tells his extraordinary personal story:

True Compass: A Memoir
by Edward M. Kennedy.

Read Barack Obama's vision for America:

The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream
by Barack Obama

Boran2 and maryb2004 recommend:

The Big Over Easy: A Nursery Crime
by Jasper Fforde

Must-have information for all presidents-and citizens-of the twenty-first century?

Physics for Future Presidents: The Science behind the Headlines
Richard A. Muller

rae recommends:

Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire
by Morris Berman.

On BooMan’s shelf:

Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln
by Doris Kearns Goodwin

This looks interesting:

Adventure Divas
by Holly Morris

Here’s a good one from
Elizabeth Gilbert:

Eat Pray Love
by Elizabeth Gilbert

"Crash" * Best Motion Picture, Academy Awards * Only $11.79 at Overstock * 2006 SAG Winner, Best Ensemble

Check out
Powell's new section:
NEW FAVORITES

Selected new arrivals at 30% off

Recommended by Indianadem and ejmw:
The Conscience of a Liberal
by Paul Wellstone

From northcountry’s bookshelf:

The New Golden Age:
The Coming Revolution Against
Political Corruption and Economic Chaos
by Ravi Batra

A novel about contractors in Iraq from the woman that runs The Spy That Billed Me:

Outsourced: A Novel
from RJ Hillhouse.


Great Deals
----- * ^ * -----

Find mystery novels by Nancy Pickard ("Kansas")



Challenging Empire: How People, Governments, and the UN Defy US Power by Phyllis Bennis (interviewed on DN!)


Featured by Keith Olbermann, New (Powell's Sale): Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower by William Blum (whose other books merit serious consideration)


"Explosive" State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration
by James Risen


The book the CIA doesn't want you to read: Jawbreaker: The Attack on Bin Laden and Al Qaeda: A Personal Account by the CIA's Key Field Commander
Larry Johnson's review


BT's all-time best seller:

PERMACULTURE:
A Designers' Manual

$79.95 * Sale: $59.95


Unequal Sisters: A Multicultural Reader in U.S. Women's History (Third Edition)


The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor And Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!


The Worst Hard Time: The Untold Story of Those Who Survived the Great American Dust Bowl
by Timothy Egan


Green Press Initiative
----- * ^ * -----


Journalistas: 100 Years of the Best Writing and Reporting by Women Journalists by Eleanor Mills * NYT review


Bury Me Standing: the Gypsies & Their Journey


1491: New Revelations of the Americas before Columbus



Brokeback Mountain
by Annie Proulx
----- * ^ * -----
Check out Powell's
"At The Movies"


Imperial Ambitions: Conversations on the Post-9/11 World by Noam Chomsky (Power & Terror: Post 9-11 Talks)


The Price of Privilege:

How Parental Pressure and
Material Advantage Are Creating a Generation of
Disconnected and Unhappy Kids

by Madeline Levine


Save 35-70% on
name brand clothing,
footwear, and outdoor gear
at SierraTradingPost.com

:





We listened to PEN American Center's "State of Emergency" and found 1940s books by Curzio Malaparte only at Alibris. (Selection (MP3) excerpted from "The Skin.")

Alibris - Books You Thought You'd Never Find
Banned Books * Are you a fan of Film Noir, Art House, Documentaries or Hong Kong Action? * Searching for a long-lost children's book or a first printing of Miles Davis' Kind of Blue on vinyl? Find it at Alibris!

:
:
www.Patagonia.com


Listed on BlogShares

© 2009 Booman Tribune