Talk:Niger uranium forgeries/Archive 1

Source of the Forgeries

The source of the forgeries now appears to be France. I'll try and track down some links and add to the article.Sdaconsulting 18:32, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Great, I had thought Italy was the ultimate culprit, but couldn't track it down this morning. Any references would be much appreciated. Wolfman 01:58, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I understood that the forgeries came through Italian intelligence but originated in the US, possibly from Michael Ledeen, as noted in the article. Prior to that, Hersh had said it originated in CIA but was never meant to go this far. Is there any more recent information about the origin of this?--csloat 4 July 2005 21:49 (UTC)

Stevertigo has made changes claiming the CIA was the source of the forgery; has this information recently come to light? I haven't been following it; does anyone have a source confirming this?--csloat 23:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

IRAQI Counterintelligence did it to discredit anyone who was dumb enough not to check the documents before using them as evidence. It's and old trick. Hear me now, believe me later. TodKarlson 11:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL... that's a good one! So your claim is that Mukhabarat wanted the US to invade Iraq?--csloat 20:23, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, of course not, the intention was to discredit BEFORE action is taken on the false information, and to cast suspicion on true intelligence from reliable sources. TodKarlson (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks according to the linked articles (La Repubblica, reported by Carlo Bonini and Giuseppe d'Avanzo and the Huffington Post) that 1) Rocco Martino, former Italian Intelligence agent, was likely the forger; 2) Rocco Martino, a female Embassy of Niger employee, and Zakaria Yaou Maiga (another Embassy of Niger employee) stole the materials needed for the forgery in a simulated burglary; 3) this was done with the collaboration of (and likely instigation by) Antonio Nucera, an Italian Intelligence official; 4) Italian Intelligence was pressured by Stephen Hadley to produce inculpatory material against Iraq; 5) Italian Intelligence provided the forged documents; and 6) when the Bush Administration began to use the forged documents as the basis for threatening Iraq, Italian Intelligence and a Berlusconi-controlled newspaper were complicit in covering-up the known falsity of the documents. I'm not saying these are facts, but they certainly seem to be what has been reported. I think this reporting deserves more attention and clarity in this article. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/04/08/nigerian-embassy-employee_n_18749.html http://www.repubblica.it/2005/j/sezioni/esteri/iraq69/sismicia/sismicia.html translated here: http://nuralcubicle.blogspot.com/2005/10/berlusconi-behind-fake-yellowcake.html Jensiverson (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why?

A neologism?

But probably an acceptable one? The article treats "the yellowcake forgery" as an accepted term, like "Teapot Dome."

"Teapot Dome" gets over 25,000 Google hits. "Yellowcake Forgery" in quotes gets less than 200. Without quotes, over 5,000. Clearly a neologism, but I can't think of an alternative . . . artifact of current event driven article . . . Chris vLS 18:19, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, "Yellowcake" might be the operative word. I think people will remember "Yelowcake uranium scandal" longer than "Niger uranium forgeries." It implies the Libbey Trial, Plamegate, etc...etc..., obstruction of justice and being lied into war. Headlines: a quick google:

Getting to the bottom of the "yellowcake" story. - Slate Jul 25, 2006

Bush and Iraq: Follow the Yellow Cake Road - TIME Jul 9, 2003

Nigerian Yellow Cake - Facts and Fiction - US Politics Oct 25, 2005

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Yellowcake_forgery

YELLOWCAKE AND YELLOW JOURNALISM - Ann Coulter Feb 7, 2007

Articles: About that 500 tons of yellow cake... Jul 20, 2005

Court Silences CIA Operative Despite Yellowcake Scandal ...Wired Nov 13, 2009

The Raw Story | Ex-CIA analyst: Forged 'yellowcake' memo ...Apr 30, 2007

Ex-CIA analyst: Forged 'yellowcake' memo 'leads right back to' Cheney April 30, 2007 --71.137.156.36 (talk) 15:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)Doug Bashford

No reference to Senate Select Committee on Intelligence's report

It disagrees with most everything in here. [1]

The report you've linked to seems to be 521 pages long. At least, the bottom of my screen says "1 of 521" -- I can't say for sure because the thing is still downloading. Can you be a bit more specific about what should be added to the article? JamesMLane 4 July 2005 04:05 (UTC)

Ditto. If you are going to slap a factual dispute tag onto this article, you better specify the facts in question. Sandover 4 July 2005 05:57 (UTC)

Can we say what is and isn't accurate? - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 07:37 (UTC)

Ditto here too. I don't see anything I think is inaccurate, and I've actually read a lot of that senate report. It's difficult to navigate because it is a pdf of images so you can't just search it. Can whoever added the accuracy tag tell us what page to look at that disputes anything here? --csloat 4 July 2005 21:52 (UTC)

Try the section called "Niger"? It's conclusive findings are on pages 72-83. They disagree with most everything in here. :-) Really. Batvette 03:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No reference to October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate

The October 2002 National Intelligence Esmtimate concluded that "the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious." Does anybody disagree that the October NIE sheds some light on this issue? Macuna03macuna03

Please justify accuracy dispute

Several of us have asked for some specification of what's supposedly inaccurate. We get no answer, but the tag keeps getting applied. It's extremely unhelpful for people to question an article's accuracy, and put the tag on, without setting forth the alleged inaccuracy on the talk page. I'm refraining from removing the tag because I hope to avoid an edit war, but I will remove it unless there's some good-faith effort to move the discussion forward. JamesMLane 8 July 2005 06:32 (UTC)

agree. removed by me. tags go up after a specific complaint is raised, not before. Derex 08:04, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

How about the text in the opening section is contradicted later in the article? Specifically, the claim that the forgery WAS used as proof, but the folks involved say it wasn't even available at the time they made their assessment and wasn't the source (but refused to declassify the real source)? TodKarlson 1107, 22 June 2006

Revision Completed

I have just completed a revision because there were multiple errors and omissions.

1. In Bush’s state of the union address, his sixteen words were “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Some have taken this to refer to the false documents. However the statement credits the British Government which did not have the false documents but did have evidence of the attempt to buy uranium including confirmation from Iraqi officials. This information is available in the Butler report. 2. Colin Powell’s speech does not mention the yellowcake documents. I have searched the entire transcript of his speech before the UN for the words “Niger” and “yellowcake” and neither appear. In addition, the US Report on PreWar Intelligence (page 68) also says Powell did not use the claim in his speech. 3. The Butler Report describes the sixteen words Pres Bush spoke in the state of the union address as “well founded.” 4. A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke. 5. Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger. 6. Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium. The Butler report made the following conclusions on page 139: a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible. c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this. d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it. RonCram

This revision will certainly need some revising. For example, it doesn't take account of Tenet's statement about the CIA's role:

Portions of the State of the Union speech draft came to the CIA for comment shortly before the speech was given. Various parts were shared with cognizant elements of the Agency for review. Although the documents related to the alleged Niger-Iraqi uranium deal had not yet been determined to be forgeries, officials who were reviewing the draft remarks on uranium raised several concerns about the fragmentary nature of the intelligence with National Security Council colleagues. [2]

In addition, it's OK to present a particular statement as coming from the Butler report, but not to state it as fact on that basis; we do not assume that governments with a vested interest in defending their policies always tell the truth. JamesMLane 17:48, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

RonCram's dscription is as factual as it gets, as for this: "we do not assume that governments with a vested interest in defending their policies always tell the truth." The results of official government inquiries cannot be automatically called suspect merely because their conclusions support policy you disagree with.

Moving Discussion Topics and Bias

For some reason, my earlier discussion of errors and omissions was moved to the bottom of the screen. I am not certain why that happened.

In the present revision, the author claims the forged documents were forged by the CIA under direction from the Bush Administration. This is certainly a biased comment as the investigation is still going on.

In addition, the new revision has no mention of the controversy that surrounds the claim the forged documents were the basis Bush's statement in the State of the Union Address. Bush clearly credits the British Government for this information and the Butler Report claims they did not know about the forged documents at that time. The British information was based on other sources including Iraqi officials. This shows bias and needs to be revised. RonCram

Your earlier discussion was moved, and then this discussion of the move was moved, because Wikipedia article talk pages are maintained in chronological order. New threads go at the bottom of the page. New comments on an existing thread go at the bottom of the thread. When a talk page becomes inconveniently long, the older entries at the top are transferred into an archive.

With regard to the substance of the article, I agree with you that the CIA's role in forging the documents should be stated as an allegation, not as an undisputed fact. Stevertigo's latest edit accomplishes this. JamesMLane 07:38, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Few Clarifications

Thank you for answering my earlier question.

1. There is no truth to the statement that Pres Bush asserted a link between Saddam and African terrorist groups based on British intelligence. Uranium is a well-mnitored export of Niger. According to the Butler Report, Saddam was attempting to purchase uranium surreptitiously through the Niger government and did come to terms on the deal in 2002, although there is no proof the deal actually went through.

2. The Downing Street memos are themselves unable to be authenticated. They were "retyped" by the reporter to excise certain names. The originals were destroyed. There is no way to check the veracity of the Downing Street memos. This should be noted.

3. The Senate has asked the FBI to investigate who produced the forgeries, not the CIA. News reports so far have pointed the finger at someone working for France. I have posted an external link.

4. Is there any evidence to support the claim by critics that the CIA was directed to produce the forgeries? If so, a link would be helpful to readers. If not, the lack of support should be noted.

Other clarifications are also needed but I haven't the time at the moment. RonCram

2- Is the authenticity of the DSM actually in doubt? "unable to be authenticated" does not mean "not authentic", and it's notable if the british government isn't denying that the memos are accurate. 3- News reports conflict on the origins of the yellowcake forgeries; some think it was an Italian intel source while others consider it to have been an American (either someone in CIA, in OSP, or Michael Ledeen and friends) 4- I doubt anyone serious is claiming the CIA was "directed" to produce the forgeries ("directed" by whom? Tenet? Bush? doubtful). But the idea that it was someone at CIA, trying to embarrass the Bush Admin but not realizing it would go so far (Hersh floats this idea in a New Yorker piece). This question - who forged the memos - has not been fully answered in a systematic way so all we have are vague suggestions. The memos did not appear out of nowhere. This is a big story that it is odd to see no journalists following up on in any significant way. I think Wikipedia should note the various theories but is not really yet in a position to judge which theories are more credible (though I certainly have my suspicions). --csloat 05:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Michael Ledeen

I added a note on the Michael Ledeen page about what is mentioned here, but it keeps getting reverted. Do people here think the Cannistraro implications are worth mentioning on the Ledeen page? Please add your voice there. Thanks --csloat 05:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Yes--it makes sense there. Tchoupitoulas 17:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The Butler Report: more deception

A key point made by the Butler Report was that British government didn't have the forged documents until after Bush's speech, so the forged documents couldn't have played any role in the British intelligence report that Bush cited. It appears that this was more weasel-wording to cover up the pack of lies used to try to justify the war. The British government didn't have the documents themselves, but did have a summary of the documents, and used it as one source in making the report cited. [3] This is another illustration that we shouldn't just report what's in a government document as if it were fact, at least in circumstances like this. JamesMLane 03:58, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

You are jumping to conclusions... or rather your source, the blogger, is jumping to conclusions. They are reviewing the documentary evidence again to see if the documents were still reliable. That is the prudent thing to do and the review was not finished. Do you remember the Dan Rather documents? Dan used to say the content was accurate even if the documents were false. The point is there is another set of documents, plus there was human intel regarding. Plus the British found Saddam was seeking uranium from another African country, which is why Bush named "Africa" rather than "Niger." RonCram 14:30, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

role of the forgeries

Most of the information in this story deals with the general issue of Iraq & Niger uranium. Clearly this connection was being investigated by early 2002. Powell & Tenet testified in September 2002 about it. However, the forgeries per se were not received by the US until October 2002, according to the article. The link James provides just above states that the US had received a written summary of the documents from Italian intelligence "more than six months" previous to March 2003. So, the question is what role did the forgeries themselves play in the more general pattern of using unreliable intelligence. The timeline of their use is unclear. I think perhaps this article should be moved to "Niger uranium" to emphasize the broader intelligence issues, which most of the article addresses anyway. For example, the Butler report says these documents weren't used by UK intelligence (but see James above). However, the intelligence that the UK did admittedly use was also clearly quite weak.

Comments? Derex 16:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Bush did not rely on forged documents

It is clear from the sixteen words Bush spoke that he was relying on British intelligence for his information, not documents the British government was not aware of. The overall tenor of the article was wrong. According to the Butler Report Saddam had men trying to buy uranium in Africa at the time Joe Wilson was there trying to build a case that it never happened. RonCram 14:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I just read the section of the Butler report. It says no such thing. The only hard fact is that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. It says that this fact, combined with unspecified "intelligence" (which undoubtedly included the contents of the forged documents, even if not the documents themselves), led to "well-founded" speculation that Iraq had sought uranium. (In fact, they had not).

The question you have to ask yourself is, why did Bush attribute the intel to the Brits? Most of what the Brits know comes from the U.S., after all. It really seems like an underhanded way to introduce a claim that the CIA wasn't willing to endorse. Mirror Vax 15:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Have changed the wording to a more ambiguous tone. Since both claims, by Italy and the UK have turned out to be wrong, I find it highly coincidental that two seperate intelligence agencies (UK vs Italy) would make the same erroneous claim. As Mirror Vax suggested, and with the Downing Street Memo in mind, the UK and US were closely linked in their quest for a casus belli. Although it is no proof it surely merits the suggestion both claims were somehow linked.--Nomen Nescio 15:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Gentlemen, some clarification is in order. Mirror Vax seems to think the Brits relied on the U.S. for the intelligence. Not true. They did confer with US intelligence to verify what they had learned and that is when the information exchange took place - after Britain already had information from multiple sources. Nescio finds it suspicious that two separate intelligence agencies would make the same mistake. The proper explanation is there is no mistake. The Yellowcake documents were forged but the reports about Iraq aeeking uranium came from multiple sources. Iraq sought uranium from both Niger and the Republic of Congo. Here are some conclusions from the Butler Report (which is not altogether supportive of other intelligence findings on WMD in Iraq) which are found on pages 122-125:

494. There was further and separate intelligence that in 1999 the Iraqi regime had also made inquiries about the purchase of uranium ore in the Democratic Republic of Congo. In this case, there was some evidence that by 2002 an agreement for a sale had been reached.

499. We conclude that, on the basis of the intelligence assessments at the time, covering both Niger and the Democratic Republic of Congo, the statements on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa in the Government’s dossier, and by the Prime Minister in the House of Commons, were well-founded. By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa" was well-founded.

503. From our examination of the intelligence and other material on Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa, we have concluded that:

a. It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999.

b. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

c. The evidence was not conclusive that Iraq actually purchased, as opposed to having sought, uranium and the British Government did not claim this.

d. The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding about Bush relying on the forged documents when he made his State of the Union address. RonCram 22:01, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. Sadly, I am not sure you are correct. As to any misunderstanding, several questions remain:

1 The forged documents were not available to the British Government at the time its assessment was made, and so the fact of the forgery does not undermine it. How do we know this? For years the Italians tried to get the US interested [4], why should British intelligence not have seen these documents also? If not, where did the British get their info? More to the point, who were these sources if not these documents? Note: ... The documents were among the sources of President Bush's claim in a 16-word passage of his State of the Union speech in 2003, later retracted, that Iraq was seeking to obtain uranium from Africa...[5] and Italy's military intelligence agency, SISMI, and people close to it, repeatedly tried to shop the bogus Niger uranium story to governments in France, Britain and the United States. That created the illusion that multiple sources were confirming the story. [6]

2 Was there any evidence of SH seeking uranium outside the Butler report? If so, could you supply the link proving this?

3 Why did the Bush administration refer to British intelligence when the CIA already discredited the uranium claim? Are the British more reliable than the CIA?

4 Why did the Bush administration retract its claim if it was based on British intelligence? As you stated the British still say SH was seeking uranium.

5 Since every single inquiry (US, UK and Australia) concludes that politicians are not at fault, but the intelligence agencies are, does that not strike you as odd? Especially as most of these agencies initially were not impressed by the evidence presented (i.e. these forgeries were rejected by the CIA, yet the CIA was to blame!?).

In short, the Niger documents probably are the most likely source for the British claim and therefore the State of the Union. --Nomen Nescio 22:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Evidently this theory that the Niger documents were the source of the claim is difficult for you to give up. The documents were "among the sources" used. That is true. When intelligence comes in from a ally, leaders like to have it confirmed by their own intelligence agencies. The forged documents were used as confirmation. At the time of the speech, not everyone in the intelligence community knew about the British intelligence and some of them were skeptial of the Niger documents. Like you, people inside the CIA (including Plame and Wilson) thought these documents were the only source. On that point, they were in error.

As the Butler Report makes clear, the British did not know about the forged documents. They had multiple sources for the intelligence as can been seen by the fact Saddam did not just seek uranium from Niger. He also sought it from the Congo. The article you linked to by Landay and Strobel bears a withering defect in that it does not discuss the Butler Report at all. If they had, they would have had answers they would rather not report.

Regarding #2 above, the only hints on the British intelligence that I know of are found in the Butler Report. As you probably know, intelligence agencies do not like to publish their sources.

Regarding #3, Bush referred to the British claim because they had multiple sources that were highly credible and the Niger documents were not identified as forgeries at the time of the State of the Union message (Jan 2003). Some in the intelligence community were skeptical of the documents, but that is not the same as the IAEA conclusion. Remember, much of British intelligence on WMDs in Iraq was shot down by the Butler Report but the claim of Saddam seeking uranium in Africa survived with flying colors (or colours as the British would say).

Regarding #4, withdrawing the claim after the documents were declared forgeries was the prudent thing to do. The IAEA declared them forgeries in March, 2003. A review of intelligence is always required after such a finding. At this point in time, I believe most people in the Bush Administration believe the British intelligence is correct and that our own CIA got it wrong.

Regarding #5, the UK did not find the intelligence agencies at fault with regard to Saddam seeking uranium in Africa.

I would suggest you read Able Danger to learn more about the intelligence community and the failures and turf battles that go on. The CIA would not support the Able Danger project because they did not want them to steal their thunder. I hope the culture at the CIA is changing under Porter Goss. Any CIA official who would put US citizens in danger over a turf battle deserves a special place in hell. RonCram 14:10, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is, SH did seek uranium? If so, why is there no objective source for this? Just because the Butler report says the forgeries were not known, doesn't make it true. I know, this sounds paranoid, but history teaches us not to believe everything we are told. Oddly enough, no other country today believes SH was seeking uranium. Politics sometimes (or is it always) results in manipulating information, another reason for intelligence agencies not telling everything they know. Heck, that is exactly what might have happened here, so these people have good reason not to tell all they know. There is no way of knowing (objectively) that the British claims were not based upon the forgeries. We have to take their word for it. Which clearly I do not. The reason why I don't accept this explanation can be found here, here, here, here and here. That would suffice I think.

Second, you make a rather confusing case. Suppose you are correct in saying SH did seek uranium (for which no evidence is advanced), and therefore the British claim was entirely valid. You also state that the Bush administration based its State of the Union upon this British report, which was entirely correct and not based upon the Niger documents. Logic dictates that the reference in the State of the Union therefore would have to be based upon fact and be correct. However, the Bush administration withdrew that statement which apparantly "was the prudent thing to do." Why is it prudent to retract an evidently true statement?

You are correct in stating that it was not yet known these were forgeries. But, the CIA had grave doubts, that is why they refused to use them, time and time again. To say nobody was aware these documents were at best dubious, seems to be a misrepresentation of the facts. Therefore, hindsight is no explanation for the retraction. Especially since the uranium claim was not based upon these forgeries and the claim is still true (your point of view, since the Butler report says so).

Please note .....Meanwhile, however, MI6 recycled the information and, without disclosing the source, reported it to the White House -- which interpreted this British echo chamber as independent confirmation of the Italian claims. <.....> British officials have insisted that they had other evidence in addition to the forged documents that confirmed Iraqi uranium purchases in Niger. The British have declined to show this evidence, however....[7], and On Jan. 28, 2003, over the objections of the CIA and State, the famous 16 words about Niger's uranium were used in President Bush's State of the Union address justifying an attack on Iraq: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." Both the British and American governments had actually obtained the report from the Italians, who had asked that they not be identified as the source. The UN's International Atomic Energy Agency also looked at the documents shortly after Bush spoke and pronounced them crude forgeries. President Bush soon stopped referring to the Niger uranium, but Vice President Cheney continued to insist that Iraq was seeking nuclear weapons.[8] which are based upon this.--Nomen Nescio 00:46, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

We will take the lack of response by RonCram as acknowledgement there are inconsistencies in his reasoning. Therefore it is not impossible for the State of the Union to be based upon the Niger documents. Anyway, since no verifiable evidence is advanced for the point of view that the forgeries were not used, it must remain in the article as a possible, if not probable, source for the Bush admistration's claim.--Nomen Nescio 21:10, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

A point of interest, although photocopies of the documents were not received until October 2002, it has recently been revealed that transcripts were available even prior to Wilson's trip. The administration has been extremely careful in the wording of their pronouncements to give the false impression that they did not rely on the forgeries as they had no "copies" of it. All this is documented by reporter Josh Marshall. Derex @ 23:25, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Though the republican talking points obfuscate things to make it seem as if the Niger forgeries were irrelevant, let's stick to the facts -- it's clear they played a role in Bush's statement and if they didn't then the statement was intentionally misleading, since SH may have "sought" uranium, but could not procure it becase Niger said "no." That, at least, is the summation of former DIA official Pat Lang among others. To claim the "16 words" were true on this basis obfuscates the real issue, which is that we went to war on the basis of information that Saddam may have possessed WMD, which was at the time known to be false. RonCram would like to repeat his claim that some unknown CIA agent deserves a "special place in hell" because of Able Danger; I wonder where that place is related to those who actually forged the documents (likely Mr. Ledeen) and those who knowingly passed them on as conclusive (likely including Mr. Bush), and of course those like Libby, Rove, and Cheney, who not only insisted on the relevance of information known to be false but even put US national security in jeopardy by outing an undercover agent (and compromising entire operations) just to punish Mr. Wilson for calling attention to this manipulation. If there be traitors in our midst, they work in the Bush Administration.--csloat 21:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

FBI Investigation

It has been a while since I have visited this page. There seem to be a few things I need to clear up. First, if Saddam was seeking uranium in Niger, we did not know at the time that he did not obtain it there. The French control the mines and could have sold. Also, Saddam could have found uranium elsewhere in Africa. He was known to have sought it in the Congo as well and we do not know how many other places he may sought it. Second, my comment about a "special place in hell" for CIA people referred to those who would not cooperate with the Able Danger team to stop al Qaeda because they wanted to get the credit. That is a ridiculous position to take and I stand by my comment. Third, I fully support the FBI investigation into the forgery of these documents. People who try to influence foreign policy by misinformation and forged documents should be prosecuted. I think it is entirely too early to be pointing fingers at any individual yet. But perhaps I am not as well informed on the subject. For the time being, I will wait to see what the investigation uncovers. In the meantime I continue to hold my position that the forged documents had no bearing on Bush's State of the Union message. The Butler Report made that clear. For some reason, that discredited claim continues to be made. RonCram 16:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If Saddam was "known" to have been seeking uranium from other sources in Africa, that would clear a lot of things up, Ron; why not simply post links to the evidence instead of vague claims that such evidence is classified? Is there a quote from someone backing up such claims? Perhaps the "discredited claim continues to be made" because the white house and the CIA have admitted it is accurate? --csloat 17:40, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

"I continue to hold my position that the forged documents had no bearing on Bush's State of the Union message." Please explain, why did the Bush administration retract the uranium claim? You must have noticed I keep asking these uncomfortable questions till you answer them. It is exceedingly clear you are avoiding these contradictions in your reasoning. Even you must accept that any statement based upon could, should, might, if can hardly be expected to be convincing. --Nomen Nescio 02:29, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

csloat, it is known by anyone who read the Butler Report. The White House backed away from the claim prior to the Butler Report being issued. Until the Butler Report was issued, there was no way to know if the British intelligence had been based on the forged documents. Now we know, yet liberals and the media continue to point to the fact the White House backed away. The whole thing is ridiculous. RonCram 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Nomen, I have answered your question repeatedly and have done so above in my answer to csloat. Prior to the Butler Report coming out, backing away from the claim was the prudent thing to do. I have not heard anyone from the White House say the "16 words" were wrong to be included after the Butler Report came out. Although it is possible George Tenet may have said it. If memory serves correctly, Tenet got fired soon after the Butler Report was published. A belated firing if ever there was one. RonCram 14:58, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see, Ron; you're saying that you understand the truth, but the liberals, the media, AND the White House all have it wrong. If you think the butler report made such a difference, why has the white house not backed away from its backing away? Your speculation that Tenet was fired for backing away from the 16 words is beyond absurd, and certainly constitutes original research at best.--csloat 16:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Why was it prudent to retract the uranium claim if that claim was entirely correct!!!!! Please explain. There either was or was no evidence of SH seeking uranium. Your position is that he did, so why retract that statement???????--Nomen Nescio 16:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Timeline

Since the Butler report fails to show any evidence for their claim there were other sources for the uranium claim this needs to be mentioned. It opens the possibility for a mistake being made, if not worse.--Nomen Nescio 10:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

By removing the remark that the Butler report did not advance evidence of its conclusion 161.215.18.51 and 64.12.116.13 are possibly guilty of vandalism. If the deleted statement is incorrect please explain. If you keep continuing your unwarranted edits without discussion I will ask an Admin to intervene!--Nomen Nescio 10:11, 7 December 2005 (UTC)