Talk:Niger uranium forgeries/Archive 2

Nigerien is the possessive form of Niger

Sounds like all authors are clear on the distinction between the Anglophone country Nigeria and the Francophone country to its north, Niger (whether George Bush is another matter ha ha).

The article uses Niger properly as a possessive but in one place uses Nigerian. I have changed this to Nigerien.

My source for this usage is Joseph Wilson IV himself, who went to Niger on a fact finding mission and found no evidence for the uranium claim. In THE POLITICS OF TRUTH, Joe Wilson uses Nigerien consistently. He oughta know. Also, -en makes sense for a Francophone country.

There are 595 Google hits for the exact phrase "Nigerian Yellowcake".

Spinoza1111 11:20, 20 January 2006 (UTC)Edward G. Nilges (possessive is Nilgesian)

cite

http://nationaljournal.com/about/njweekly/stories/2006/0203nj3.htm

CIA analysts wrote then-CIA Director George Tenet in a highly classified memo on June 17, 2003, "We no longer believe there is sufficient" credible information to "conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." The memo was titled: "In Response to Your Questions for Our Current Assessment and Additional Details on Iraq's Alleged Pursuits of Uranium From Abroad."—Preceding unsigned comment added by Derex (talk • contribs)

What are you trying to say?-- Nomen Nescio 16:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not saying anything. It's just a useful reference for the text. When I get time, I'll work it in. For the moment, I posted it here in case anyone wants to fool with it. Derex 16:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

another, http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/wilkerson.html Derex 07:21, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

my recent changes

Since Mr j galt has taken it upon himself to revert my changes without explanation, I will start the ball rolling and indicate the reason for each change below:

I will address each point one by one. Next time, I recommend that you post proposed controversial changes BEFORE you insert them in the article.--Mr j galt 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Uh, you're the one who made the controversial changes without explanation. My changes were each explained clearly in the edit summaries.-csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You failed to reach any consensus here before you did so. I think it would be a much better course of action.--Mr j galt 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

1- allegedly: The documents were not "allegedly" forged; it is known for a fact that they were forged. There is no published source that disputes this.

Didn't the United States VP dispute this? "Cheney, who made the rounds on the cable news shows that month, tried to discredit ElBaradei's conclusion that the documents were forged. 'I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong,' Cheney said. '[The IAEA] has consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past.'"[1]--Mr j galt 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I was not aware Cheney had said that and I am fine with including the information that Cheney may believe the documents are authentic. I looked around and did not find much about this, but I think it would be excellent to include a sentence or two about Cheney's bizarre theory. Is there anyone else who has published such a claim? --csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure. But I am also unaware of a credible authority that has declared them forgeries. The IAEA is not in the business of document authentication the last time I looked. Hopefully, Patrick Fitgerald is really investigating these documents and wil get to the bottom of it. Right now, we just know they are alleged forgeries.--Mr j galt 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The IAEA is a credible authority. Every report of the forgeries includes the fact that they were amateur forgeries; they included signatures of officials who no longer held the offices claimed on the forged documents. Face it, they are forgeries. All we have contesting that is a vague quote from Cheney that is not backed up by anyone (and even Cheney himself has not seen fit to make this point clearly).--csloat 11:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

2- removed "Critics allege that these" -- again, this is a demonstrable fact, not an "allegation." The article cites several examples below.

This point appear moot because you have apparently seen the error in your ways. In your new edit, you have changed "was by the Bush Administration's admission a reference to these documents" to "may have been a reference to these documents ." You now know that it is not a "demonstrable fact." Please don't be so quick to make such sweeping statements.--Mr j galt 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't lecture me. I did back off of this point after doing further research because I try to keep an open mind. It would be great if you would consider doing the same.--csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

3- alleged by critics to be a reference -- I changed to "by the Bush Administration's admission". I believe this to be accurate.

See previous item. You now know it is inaccurate to state this as an undisputed fact. The Bush Administration says it relied on British Intelligence, not yellowcake documents. The British White Paper did not rely on yellowcake documents either. This is an misleading and unsourced paragraph --Mr j galt 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the Bush Admin does not seem to have made clear what they relied on for that statement. British intel has not to my knowledge indicated any source of information about this point other than the niger forgeries.--csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what your are talking about here. If you have a source that says British Intelligence relied on these Yellowcake documents for its conclusions, then please give us the source. I think that would be a pretty big story if it were true.--Mr j galt 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen no source that indicates British intel relied on anything other than these documents. It would indeed be a big story if it were true that they had any other intelligence on this matter, but based on what is known from the Butler report, all we know about is the forged documents. Perhaps there are other sources of information; let us know if you learn about any.--csloat 11:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

4- the thing about Wilson "misspeaking" to the SSCI is covered below; the sentences here are totally incoherent. This was not a POV change; this just didn't make any sense. If you can explain it and write it in a proper sentence or two perhaps it might merit inclusion.

You have removed deleted content for what appears to be POV reasons. The sentences are totally coherent; they just happen to be unflattering to Wilson. Here is the section that you gutted: However, during a subsequent investigation by the Unites States Senate intelligence committee, Wilson admitted under oath that the documents in question were known but not in the hands of the CIA until 8 months later. Further, when asked by the Senate Intel committee how he would know if the documents were fakes, given that Wilson had no idea whose names should be on originals, or what an original would look like, Wilson claimed to have "misspoken" on this issue.

--Mr j galt 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't care if they flatter Wilson, what I care is about it making sense in the context of this article. What did he "misspeak" about? It is simply not explained here and this whole point is a deviation -- it is not wilson who confirmed the documents were fake. That is what he "misspoke" about. Not whether or not they were forged. Why is this in this section?--csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The Senate report actually quotes Wilson as saying he "misspoke." That is his word, not mine. I will put a statement in the article quoting word for word from the Senate document regarding how he "misspoke."--Mr j galt 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, just put it somewhere where it makes sense. I erased it here because it was incoherent, not because I didn't agree with it.-csloat 11:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

5 -I changed the false information about the SSCI conclusions into the correct one: "The Senate intelligence committee report and other sources seem to confirm that Plame gave her husband a positive recommendation. However, they also confirm that she did not personally authorize the trip (and in fact did not have any authority to do so)." Change the wording if you like but the substance is far more accurate in this version.

She didn't just give him a "positive recommendation," SHE WAS THE ONE WHO "OFFERED UP HIS NAME." Plame pitched Wilson's name to upper level CIA administrators, she didn't just act as a job reference - LOL!.[2] The sentence here: "The Senate Intel committee report found unanimously that it was Ms. Plame, not the Vice-President, who had suggested to send Wilson to Niger," is 100% accurate.--Mr j galt 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The SSCI did not "find unanimously" any such thing. They mentioned that and they mentioned the other fact which you would prefer to delete.--csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

No one has ever said that Plame had the authority to send her husband. She was a mid-level bureaucrat at CIA, not a top executive. Plame however is the one who offered up Wilson name. But for her intervention, he wouldn't have had the opportunity to go. I have no problem with mentioning that she recommended her husband to higher level officials under whose authority he was sent.--Mr j galt 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually that is not what the SSCI found. It seems that the higher-ups asked about him and she gave him a positive recommendation. The "offered up his name" thing is disputed, and is certainly not a "unanimous finding".--csloat 11:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

6- I got rid of the references to "bipartisan, unanimous report" because it is unnecessary and obviously inserted to distort the reality (there were addenda in the report by Democrats, and in fact the report has been severely criticized since its publication, even by some of those democrats). This information is unnecessary.

You shouldn't have. The description "bipartisan, unanimous report" is accurate and relevant. If you have additional sourced information that would give more details for the reader, then include it. But don't delete accurate relevant material; merely because it does not fit your POV.--Mr j galt 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is a needless editorial comment and it is misleading for reasons I explained above. A link to the article about the report would be sufficient to let people learn more about it; the only reason it is placed in this page (over and over!) is for POV purposes.-csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it important to let readers know the Senate Intelliegnce Committee Report was a bipartisan, unanimous report. That is a very important fact that goes to the document's credibility. I agree though that it does not to be repeated several times. --Mr j galt 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

But it isn't a fact - it is a distortion, as I pointed out above. If people want to know the details about the SSCI they can click on the link and learn that it was a report with an addendum from several of the Democratic members who disagreed with some things, and that it has been severely criticized since 2004, even by some committee members.--csloat 11:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

7- Changed "concluded" to "claimed", as the passage does not cite a conclusion of the SSCI but just one of its claims.

The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee thoroughly investigated the matter (using secret documents and testimony made under oath) and made unanimous conclusions, not claims.--Mr j galt 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes but the point cited here was not a unanimous conclusion but one of several claims.--csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

What part of the Senate Intelligence Committee report was not unanimous? I am interested in knowing. The Senate site and news accounts indicated the whole thing was adopted unanimously. And this is a report that follows the Committee's investigation into the Niger intelligence matter. It contains conclusions and findings-- and as accurate an account as a unanimous, bipartisan panel could possibly put together. The Senate Committee did not make claims. Where is source for that contention?--Mr j galt 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read the report? You are citing minor claims as "unanimous, bipartisan" conclusions. This is false. The actual conclusions are named and numbered. And in fact the report was severely criticized. And in fact the committee is still investigating many of these matters -- I am looking forward to their second report; it should put to rest a lot of the republican talking points that you like to harp on.--csloat 11:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

8- Added a {{Fact}} tag where necessary (galt of course removed it)

Not only did I re-add the fact tag,[3] you have since acknowledged that the statement not accurate.[4]--Mr j galt 16:26, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you re-added the tag in that place but as you are well aware I am referring here to a different fact tag which you deleted along with a sourced claim here: "The Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Report also claimed that when Wilson briefed the CIA on his trip to Niger, CIA analysts felt the claim that Iraq sought WMD from Africa was further substantiated, though the State Department thought Wilson's findings refuted the claim."--csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Great. I welcome any all fact tags. I am sure that information is in the Senate Committee Report. I will find the section and cite it.--Mr j galt 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then perhaps you would like to stop erasing the {{Fact}} tags that are attached to items you believe are true, and, more importantly, perhaps you will stop erasing relevant and sourced information that you do not like. That would be a nice gesture of good faith. --csloat 11:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

9- Added sourced reference to the fact that the President received warnings from the CIA about this in 2002. galt simply deleted the entire fact and its reference (and he accuses me of deletions!).

This is allegation by an un-named source has been investigated and dismissed. The bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee investigated this claim and unanimously concluded that, "CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President in the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue.[5] We will add the line in the article to address the issue.--Mr j galt 16:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please add information rather than deleting stuff that you are uncomfortable with. Thank you.--csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not uncomfortable with it. Let's put it in side by side, along with the dates.--Mr j galt 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree with me. Does this mean you will stop your aggressive POV deletions of relevant information? One can hope...-csloat 11:19, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

10- Added information explaining the Plame affair rather than having the nonsensical "The ensuing Plame affair..." -- the previous version did not explain what the affair was or why it "ensued" from anything. In galt's version it sounds like the Plame affair erupted as a result of the State Department's findings about Wilson. galt will insist that plame was not covert -- if you like, we can use the word "undercover" here rather than "covert" in order to keep that particular debate on the Plame affair article.

The original sentence was accurate and sensible: "The ensuing 'Plame affair' (aka. 'CIA leak scandal') is an ongoing political scandal and criminal investigation into the source of the leak which 'outed' Plame, and whether or not that person committed a crime." Csloat repeatedly attempts to insert the controversial claim --in this and other Plame-related articles--that Plame was "covert" and "undercover." This is a Democratic talking point that has no place in Wikipedia. We only know that Plame was "classified."--Mr j galt 16:52, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

This is not a 'Democratic talking point', it's a fact that Plame was covert. Please see this, the most recent corroboration.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 19:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

It is definitely a Democratic talking point to say that Plame was covert. I agree that the Fitzgerald sentence is interesting in the new document, but the judge in the case said that charges that Libby outed a covert agent are "off the table" because of lack of evidence. Let's put it all in the Plame Affair article and let the reader decide.--Mr j galt 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's fact, now backed up by the released opinion as well. And while I appreciate the glimmer of hope evident when you say this new proof is 'interesting', I think you misunderstand why the judge said it was 'off the table'. As I quoted already, the judge said that if Libby discussed Plame's covert status with Miller, those charges could be back on the table... meaning that it is not her covert status, but rather whether it was discussed, that is at odds. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The original sentence did not indicate what the plame affair is or why it "ensued." Like I said above, we can say "undercover" here and have the debate about "covert" on the plame affair article.--csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

11- I eliminated "mentioned for the purpose of correcting Wilson's previous claims that the Vice President's office had sent Wilson to Niger," which I referred to as "bullshit mindreading." Pardon the foul language, but that's what it is -- we don't know why Novak mentioned Plame, and the explanation offered here is not supported by anything in Novak's article. It appears to be a weird distortion of something that came out of the VP's office; that issue is clarified in the article below and is not significant enough to merit discussion in this part of the article. (added 00:00, 5 February 2006 (UTC))

Novack wrote about why he mentioned Plame. It's in his column "The CIA leak". He said "I was curious why a high-ranking official in President Bill Clinton's National Security Council (NSC) was given this assignment. Wilson had become a vocal opponent of President Bush's policies in Iraq after contributing to Al Gore in the last election cycle and John Kerry in this one." The answer he got was an accurate one, that "Wilson had been sent by the CIA's counterproliferation section at the suggestion of one of its employees, his wife."--Mr j galt 17:14, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then include that quote (from an article written months later) elsewhere (or here if you can express its relevance coherently). The way the claim was put in here was completely unsourced mindreading.--csloat 22:20, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fair. Next time though, just add a fact tag.--Mr j galt 03:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's it. Please do not revert without addressing each of these concerns. Thanks!--csloat 21:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Note - I now believe #3 to be incorrect and made the change accordingly. I could not find evidence to support it and I think what I incorrectly remembered was the Bush Administration admitting that the 16 words were false. Anyway, I made the change in the article but I left the {{Fact}} tag in since it could still use one.-csloat 12:15, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

CSloat's Recent POV Edits

Wikipedia is supposed to be a place where individuals can find neutral information. It is not supposed to be an extension of someone's POV blog.[6]. CSloat has repeatedly tried to remove the word "alleged" from this article, even though the particular statement or charge is unproven and disputed. I restored those. His removal of some sections, such as "the bipartisan, unanimous report," can only be explained as POV pushing. The comments for his edits (e.g., "rm bullshit mindreading and eliminate obfuscation" and "t/o bullshit... this paragraph is full of nonsense") are not only misleading, they are offensive. I will continue to revert any and all POV edits. P.S. CSloat, please refrain from giving me directives. Your are not my master and this is not your article or encyclopedia. Thanks!--Mr j galt 21:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Your edits are not factually based, they are POV. Your constant accusation of others, using the very words with which they (factually) accuse you, is pure trollism. Wikipedia is a place where collaboration is required - and your repetitive personal attacks and 'slash-and-burn' editing, combined with your disruption of Wikipedia articles by expanding/avoiding arguments you have lost, will not earn you much respect among the editors here - each of which has their own viewpoints and POV. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

User:RyanFreisling, I assumed good faith on your part until you resorted to edit warring, personal attacks, wikistalking, and relentless POV pushing. It is clear that you share csloat's POV. By giving csloat a hammer and sickle medal in August 2005 for "the fight against rightwing propaganda," it is apparent that you are not a neutral observer to csloat's POV edits on this page and others.--Mr j galt 04:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry to hear you think good faith is something that can be withheld on the basis of perceived political differences. For what it is worth, you are not furthering your argument by attacking others. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:30, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop misrepresenting my position. It is rude and a violation of the wiki policy on civility. I did not say that I am withholding good faith "on the basis of perceived political differences." I said, "I assumed good faith on your part until you resorted to edit warring, personal attacks, wikistalking, and relentless POV pushing." I recommend that you review the Wikipedia policy on good faith. It states, "This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Things which can cause the loss of good faith include vandalism, personal attacks, and edit warring." --Mr j galt 04:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

You have no evidence whatsoever to withhold good faith. None. Please contain yourself to the topic at hand - the Yellowcake forgery. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

RfC (Request for Comment) opened for Mr j galt

An RfC has been opened here.-- User:RyanFreisling @ 22:36, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

can we please put this "not covert" nonsense to rest now?

I think this article, which an anonymous user called attention to on the plame affair page, puts to rest this question of Plame's covert status, and really confirms that Mr j galt has been wrong all along about Plame not being "covert" and about his absurd distinctions between "covert," "undercover," and "classified." Can we all get along now? Thanks. --csloat 00:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends on what time period you are going for here. If you are going for 'She was at one time covert' I would agree wholeheartedly. This source seems to bear that out for sure. If you are arguing that she was definitely covert at the time she was 'outed', this source doesn't help settle that matter in the least. Arkon 01:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, that's not correct. Here is what the article says: "But special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald found that Plame had indeed done 'covert work overseas' on counterproliferation matters in the past five years, and the CIA 'was making specific efforts to conceal' her identity, according to newly released portions of a judge's opinion." So, it does indeed indicate that she was "covert" as per the IIPA at the time of her outing. Or, to be more precise, it indicates that Patrick Fitzgerald's conclusion was that she was covert (and the judge in this case affirmed that finding). What is at issue for Fitzgerald is whether Libby knew she was covert at the time, not whether she was.--csloat 01:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the per the IIPA is just that she had to be to have done covert work overseas in the past 5 years. Which is of course what is beared out in the cite, not that she was covert at the time of the 'outing'. Arkon 01:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The definition of covert in the IIPA is explicitly referred to in the wording of the court. The only reason galt claimed that she was not covert is that he did not believe there was evidence she had travelled on covert business over the past 5 years. There it is in black and white, she did. It goes on to confirm the other aspect of the IIPA definition, that the CIA "was making specific efforts to conceal" her identity. What definition of "covert" do you think is not met under these conditions? I think your interpretation is mistaken.-csloat 01:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some crossing of wires in this discussion. I'll repeat what I started out with. It depends on what time period you are going for here. If you are going for 'She was at one time covert' I would agree wholeheartedly. This source seems to bear that out for sure. If you are arguing that she was definitely covert at the time she was 'outed', this source doesn't help settle that matter in the least. Arkon 01:33, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I think part of the confusion is my fault here, if you are arguing that under the definition of the IIPA that she would be considered covert under the 3 guidelines present, I would agree. Though I believe it neccessary that if you are using that definition of covert to label her as such within her articles, that it be noted to be from the IIPA. Arkon 01:41, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

What definition of "covert" are you using? To my knowledge, there is nobody claiming that she was not "covert" in the general sense; what was at issue was her status under the IIPA, which I believe you correctly acknowledge was covert. In terms of being "covert" in the general sense, that is, "undercover," I think that has been pretty well established. Or perhaps you prefer the clause, "her status was classified".... either way, I don't think there is any dispute about that. The only dispute has been over the IIPA definition. Certainly, it should be clear in the article what definition of "covert" is at issue. I'm just not clear what definition you are defending.-csloat 01:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean by covert "in the general sense." Plame was a CIA officer, so we are talking about covert "in the CIA officer sense," which is defined in the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. Just like the news media, I do not believe that Plame was a covert agent at the time she was named by Robert Novack. If she was, it would be a major crime, probably even treason. I am willing to concede that she may have been a covert agent at the time because, although it is highly doubtful, no one really knows for sure and there is an investigation presently being conducted on the matter. Heck, I am even willing to accept "allegedly covert." But it would be improper to simply state that she was covert, especially when so many students rely on wikipedia for accurate facts and information.

For the sake of students who visit this page, on March 23, 2005, every major news organization, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, AP, Newsweek, Reuters, and the White House correspondents, joined to file a friend of the court brief [7] on behalf of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper.

They said:

"To the average observer, much less to the professional intelligence operative, Plame was not given the “deep cover” required of a covert agent. See 50 U.S.C. § 426 (“covert agent” defined). She worked at a desk job at CIA headquarters, where she could be seen traveling to and from, and active at, Langley. She had been residing in Washington – not stationed abroad – for a number of years."[8] --Mr j galt 03:08, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

This 'friend of the court' brief is an opinion without evidence. There is a mountain of actual factual evidence posted by a number of editors in response to this ongoing revert war of yours, all demonstrating that the claim by Toensing (a pro-administration Republican lawyer and friend of Robert Novak) and her corporate pals wholly erroneous. Wholly. Erroneous. As in, false. As csloat himself said, "What is at issue for Fitzgerald is whether Libby knew she was covert at the time, not whether she was".-- User:RyanFreisling @ 04:36, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

That's typical. Galt is beginning to realize that he is wrong and that Patrick Fitzgerald, who he quoted time and time again to back him up, never said what he thought he said, so he falls back on this amicus curiae brief drafted by a known unreliable hack.--csloat 11:22, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

here is another view of the court brief [9]. here is the actual brief [10]. the issue will not be completely resolved until the case is completely over and fitzgerald, or plame writes a book. Anthonymendoza 21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

DanKorn

Could you please explain the need to suggest the documents are not forgeries? Could you also explain why you remove comments on certain statements, which by removing them suggests they are established facts beyond any doubt? It would help if you discussed your edits and not repeat them without explaining. Thank you.-- Nomen Nescio 19:29, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Current Event?

Is this still a current-enough event to warrant the "current-event" warning at the top? While more may come out about Plame, the "yellowcake forgery" itself seems to me to be old news at this point. --Brianyoumans 07:49, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

As of today it is current:

• TWO employees of the Niger embassy in Rome were responsible for the forgery of a notorious set of documents used to help justify the Iraq war, an official investigation has allegedly found.[11]

Nomen Nescio 12:52, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Anon user edit war

We've got a new edit war started by 68.39.117.39 (talk · contribs), also using the ip . This user refuses to explain anything in talk or in the edit summaries but simply makes the changes without discussion. I have already reverted him but he keeps coming back. He is editing like this on several pages -- Yellowcake forgery, Plame affair, Joseph C. Wilson, and Valerie Plame. I've asked him to stop on the 68.39.117.39 user talk page.--csloat 02:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

"16 Words" Update

I can see the great disagreement about whether Bush built his "16 words" on fake documents or not. At the very least, I can contribute an article which is very informative.

http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/

- Futobingoro 23:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Tyler Drumheller

I created an article on Tyler Drumheller, former head of CIA operations in Europe during the relevant periods. He was on 60 Minutes tonight and talked about what he thought of the documents. Any help expanding on his article or including some of that information here would be appreciated. --waffle iron ^talk 02:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Eeks

Is this what they mean with interesting?:

The Bush administration invaded Iraq claiming Saddam Hussein had tried to buy yellowcake uranium in Niger. As much of Washington knew, and the world soon learned, the charge was false. Worse, it appears to have been the cornerstone of a highly successful "black propaganda" campaign with links to the White House.[12]

Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 02:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to find what's new in that piece. The SISMI connection to the forgery is pretty well-established by now. In any case, great article - thanks for the reference! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS

Please stop including disreputable sources for this article. Wikipedia policy is quite clear on this matter -- blogs and other websites which do not employ editorial oversight of authors' work are not permitted as sources here. Please stop adding blogs. Morton devonshire 06:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Please stop deleting reputable sources from this article. You have deleted Joe Wilson's NYT article that is a key factor in this whole controversy! Among others. Simply because the article is printed on a different site does not mean it is sourced to a "heinous blog" (which the site is not anyway). If you find a better place that the article exists, put it there. Or if you have trouble with the link, make a case for deleting the link, but not the whole citation! You also deleted a notable article in the notable, non-blog, journalistic source American Prospect, a notable article from the well known and respected scholarly project factcheck.org, a notable, on-topic view of Vincent Cannistraro by Ian Masters, and a notable interview with Philip Giraldi. Many of these are cited in the article and thus should be in an accurate list of references! WP:RS does not mean that quoted sources should not be cited. It also does not mean that you can only link to the NYT website. It also does not mean that you delete an entire citation just because you don't think the website on which the citation is found is reliable -- you can actually cite stuff here that isn't on the web at all! Notable interviews (esp ones that are quoted in the article) on notable radio programs should be cited here even if you don't think the website on which the transcription appears is "reliable." Please stop deleting notable information. Thanks!--csloat 20:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The American Prospect article should stay - American Prospect easily meets WP:RS. The Cooperative Research Project link should be nuked and should stay nuked - I see no evidence that it's a reliable source. Factcheck.org is reliable enough that the Vice President of the United States (incorrectly) cited it in his debate as an authoritative source; they have a good reputation, and their very purpose is to engage in rigorous fact-checking. The commondreams.org reposting of the Joe Wilson article is a verbatim copy; I just checked myself. I'd nuke the Alternet.org posting; quite frankly, unless they're reposting information from AP, Reuters, the NYTimes, or something else, they're even less reliable than Fox News - which takes some doing, I will say. Furthermore, it's an edited transcript; we have no way of knowing what was edited. The source I'm least certain of is the Philip Giraldi interview; I'm not entirely certain of the relevance. Captainktainer * Talk 02:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed ojn Cooperative Research but not the Alternet citation - they are transcribing an interview on a well known radio show with a well known source with expertise on this topic whose comments are cited in numerous mainstream sources. If you have a better source for the transcript that is fine but you cannot just delete it because it is "edited" - unless you have evidence that they are making stuff up, we must presume good faith on the part of journalists involved. The interview is also directly cited in the article; you cannot just delete citations when they are quoted sources; the same is true of the Giraldi interview.--csloat 03:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, especially with Alternet, we can't assume good faith; we need to do exactly the opposite. We need to examine sources critically, according to the guidelines on WP:RS. Were it to be a verbatim copy, perhaps we could accept it as a source (perhaps being absolutely critical), but because it's edited and doesn't contain information on how it's been edited, and because it comes from a notoriously unreliable source, it can't really be trusted. And, again, I question the relevance of the Giraldi interview. Captainktainer * Talk 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

(1) Please substantiate that the source is "notoriously unreliable." (2) Please indicate where it says we should assume bad faith with sources that are transcripts of interviews (I know the quote in the article is directly from the interview as I listened to the interview myself; I also have looked at the transcript and do not see anything that is different from what I heard; but apparently I should not trust my own ears either?) Find another source for the interview if you like but you cannot delete it based on your assertion that it is "notoriously" unreliable (this is the first I've heard of this alleged "notoriety," btw). (3) Care to substantiate your assertion that you "question the relevance" of the Giraldi interview? I explained its relevance above and you simply repeated your claim.-csloat 03:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Iran caught smuggling uranium

This story about Iran supports the concern that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Africa.[13] It also confirms the Butler Report saying President Bush comments about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa were "well-founded." It also points out that Joseph Wilson is either incompetent or liar or both. RonCram 12:48, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

It's too bad it doesn't mention that Iran and Iraq are not the same country.--csloat 20:37, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

But it certainly blows holes in the argument by Joseph Wilson that no isolated country could get hold of uranium from Africa. But of course, we knew Wilson was a liar long ago. He found out Saddam was looking for uranium in 1999 and then wrote his op-ed piece saying there was no evidence Saddam was looking for uranium.[14] RonCram 13:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Get a grip Ron. First you confuse Iran and Iraq, then you claim you are right anyway because you think Wilson is a liar. If you think Wilson is a liar, why don't you call Fitzgerald and let him know? Leave this crap off of Wikipedia. The article you linked never mentions Wilson or Iraq.--csloat 20:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

RonCram, do you think that the standards for British intelligence reports are as firm as the U.S. standards? Could British claims be based on the forgery or is there more first person evidence? If there is, do you think that Britain would have let the CIA review it? The reason why the CIA does not support Britain's claim is that there is very little substance to the claim.

NPOV

This whole thing needs a rewrite with the facts. Iraq did solicit Nigeria for yellowcake, that is established fact. Wilson dropped the ball. Plame's name was "leaked" by someone against the war, not the administration. so on. -- 130.126.138.6 21:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

You're basically trolling. If you have evidence of some incorrect fact in the article, please present it.--csloat 00:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

This is a critical issue in the whole debate about the war in Iraq and whether our government lied. I think that some editor of some repute needs to look over the issue, and weave an entry for this issue. I think that the point of view has to be somewhat neutral, but the fact is that the Niger claims were false and an obvious forgery.

Here are the facts (quotes are taken from http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html?referrer=emailarticle):

1. Iraq did express interest in acquiring (seeking) uranium from Niger:

"Wilson said that a former prime minister of Niger, Ibrahim Assane Mayaki, was unaware of any sales contract with Iraq, but said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him, insisting that he meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' between Niger and Iraq -- which Mayaki interpreted to mean they wanted to discuss yellowcake sales."

2. Negotiations for the actual transaction, however, never went forward, due to the many obstacles that would have inevitably derailed such arrangements, and Iraq never received any uranium from Niger during the period we are concerned with:

"A report CIA officials drafted after debriefing Wilson said that 'although the meeting took place, Mayaki let the matter drop due to UN sanctions on Iraq.'"

3. Joseph Wilson's findings were used to discredit Bush's "16 words" even though Bush had never claimed that a uranium transaction had taken place

4. None of the above findings were derived from the forged documents

If you take issue with any of the above points, simply state which one(s) and we can talk. --Futobingoro 21:57, 07 January 2007 (UTC)

That Post article is one of the more fact based accounts I've seen, and this issue is more crucial than anyone realizes. Joe Wilson was the sole bridge across the chasm separating honest dissemination of faulty intel in good faith.... with making a case they knew at the time to be other than what was known to be fact. His "undisclosed source" interiews, not his Op-ed, started the "lied to go to war" controversy that exists today still. It's all revealed in the findings of the inquiry:http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html See Niger, points and conclusive findings. However, futobingoro, your point #3 is actually false, Wilson verbally debriefed with CIA and having found no new information, they didn't use anything Joe Wilson said or did in any conclusive report which reached the White House. Yet in interviews, he said he was instrumental, his findings put an end to the story once and for all, and he knew for a fact that Cheney received a report of Wilson's alleged "debunkings". The body of the above report details this as they reveal his wife was also instrumental in him being offered up for the trip.Batvette 03:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilson wrote in his op-ed that the facts he had obtained in his Africa trip debunked George Bush's "16 words." Quote below:

I thought the Niger matter was settled and went back to my life. (I did take part in the Iraq debate, arguing that a strict containment regime backed by the threat of force was preferable to an invasion.) In September 2002, however, Niger re-emerged. The British government published a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country.

Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.

The next day, I reminded a friend at the State Department of my trip and suggested that if the president had been referring to Niger, then his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them. He replied that perhaps the president was speaking about one of the other three African countries that produce uranium: Gabon, South Africa or Namibia. At the time, I accepted the explanation. I didn't know that in December, a month before the president's address, the State Department had published a fact sheet that mentioned the Niger case.

Clearly, Wilson believed that his finding that Iraq had sought, but not purchased, uranium debunked Bush's statement of Iraq's seeking of uranium in Africa.Futobingoro 19:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wilson's "belief" in the impact his trip had on the issue is largely irrelevant. Here are the facts as supported by the Senate inquiry I previously linked to: He never filed a written report, only a verbal debriefing. This debriefing was so inconclusive, nothing in it was used in any report that reached the white house. Before he published his op-ed in July 2003, he leaked to 29 different media sources (starting in May) an ever escalating series of implied falsehoods and outright lies which alleged he was the last word on Niger and he had personal knowledge that last word got to Cheney- both of which are false. The op-ed was actually a backpedalling from those lies. All of this is covered in a legitimate media piece: [15]by Matthew Continetti, which asks not that you believe the author but that you read the passages of the Senate Inquiry for the relevant facts. Simply put, Joe Wilson's story was full of false claims and he has no first hand information we can ccnsider when determining if the white house knew the niger story was false (which is hard to believe because if Cheney was going to use it to lie us into a war he never would have asked the CIA to get to the bottom of it, vetting it through open channels) Wilson saw an opportunity to gain higher office and used it- note he was Kerry's foreign policy advisor (and experts speculate top choice for Sec of State) until the day that Senate report was published- the next day Kerry washed his hands of him- does that speak of his legitimacy? Finally on Plame- Joe Wilson is a diplomat, NOT a CIA agent trained to file reports after a mission to answer a VP's question. Just knowing people does not make you, to quote the Senate inquiry, "an individual with a proven repirting record". Wilson would NEVER have been sent without Plames's recommendation he be sent (on an assignment NOBODY wanted) AND he had no security clearance- no CIA agent could have gone public after the fact as he did. So to think the white house outed Plame out of spite is silly- here was a man accusing them of high crimes who had no rational reason to be in that position when Cheney asked the CIA a question he never got an answer to- don't you think they- and the press- would wonder who the hell wilson was and why he was sent? WILSON outed his wife with his opportunistic scheme to set up the very official he botched the request of by being an unqualified person for the job. Oh yeah- Wilson was so concerned about the 16 words in the Jan 2003 SOTU speech, he was on PBS in early march saying Saddam was a threat with WMD who needed to be dealt with- with nary a word about the yellowcake concerns. That's a fact. Batvette (talk) 09:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Note it may seem I'm hard on Joe Wilson, but it's no stretch to believe many US soldiers were killed or maimed when he became the sole bridge across the chasm between mistaken intelligence and known lies. The media ran with this and the people of Iraq were told the conflict which sought to free them was based upon willful lies to exploit them- they couldn't get to Bush so instead attacked the surrogates sent to enforce his policies. To this day we only know they pushed the war but believed Saddam was what the intelligence consensus was. Wilson's story was meant to remove legitimacy from that mission and that certainly fuels the enemy and their cause. (IMO, of course)Batvette (talk) 09:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

So he was so irrelevant that Cheney's chief of staff was convicted on one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements to federal investigators. And the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suspended his license to practice law.

"It's no stretch to believe many US soldiers were killed or maimed when he became the sole bridge across the chasm between mistaken intelligence and known lies". So why did Bush officials get convicted of crimes and disbarred to cover up mistaken intelligence? If you want to talk about fueling the enemy, then the allegedly incompetent "oopsy poopsy" created more terrorists and cost thousands of American lives and hundreds of billions of dollars.--68.248.155.2 (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

And apart from U.S. intelligence agencies saying the War created more terrorists, the CBO telling us how much money was wasted, the Defense Department telling us how many people died, and non-partisan analysts and nonproliferation experts questioning the integrity of the intelligence...

British intelligence also specifically said that "[George W.] Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy." That might explain why they ignored dissenting opinions and in fact lashed out at them through felonies, as well as why they created Office of Special Plans to help fix the case and circumvent the intelligence community. Wow, what a well-coordinated and costly oopsy-poopsy!--68.248.155.2 (talk) 21:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Article name

The article is less about the actual documents themselves, but the controversy and how the documents were used. Several thoughts come to mind:

1. Niger controversy (2,000 google hits)
2. Yellowcake controversy (241 google hits)
3. Niger uranium controversy (216 google hits)
4. Niger uranium forgeries (717 google hits)
5. Niger forgeries (41,000 google hits)
6. 16 words controversy (16 words gets 610,000 hits, adding controversy gives ya 97,000)

My fav is the 16 words (possibly spelled out).--Bobblehead 02:11, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Titles 2, 3, & 4 would all work. I quickly changed the name during the recent AFD because people were getting worked up over the title, rather than the content. As to (4), they are unquestionably, verfiably, andadmittedly forgeries so that's not a POV issue. However, the controversy extends somewhat beyond the documents themselves, so I prefer (3) with an early and prominent mention of the forgery (1st or 2nd sentence). (6) is an intriguing suggestion, but not very descriptive. Derex 02:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

"Niger Forgeries" is probably the best since it gets more hits, but "Niger uranium forgeries" is more specific.--csloat 10:24, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I may be confused about the topic of this article. Is it about the documents themselves or the controversy about whether or not Iraq sought yellowcake uranium from Niger? If it's about the controversy, then "16 words controversy" is probably the most accurate as the controversy, at least in the US, centered around the 16 words and the documents were just a piece of evidence as to why the 16 words were inaccurate. If it is about the Niger documents, then "Niger uranium documents" is probably the most accurate and all the stuff about the Plame Affair and whether or not Iraq actually sought yellowcake should be removed from this article and moved into one covering the controversy. --Bobblehead 18:19, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Can I just ask what is wrong with the old name? "Yellowcake forgeries" makes the most sense to me as it focuses on the specific forged documents and the controversy that they caused. I think everyone's perception of this was skewed just because one editor saw fit to ram this article through the AfD process for no good reason. That editor, it appears, has still not bothered to even say a word on the talk page about any of this; why should one editor's bizarre POV (which has now been decisively rejected by consensus on the AfD page) hijack continued work on this article?--csloat 19:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi sloat. I personally don't think there was much wrong with it, but not much wrong with a new title either. I named it that myself, because I started the article (under an old handle). There wasn't a commonly used name then, and there still isn't now, so I just picked one that seemed short and descriptive. I changed the name in AFD because, incredibly, many editors wanted to _delete_ based on the name. The logic of that eludes me. So, I thought better to take away that strawman immediately, and sort it out later. Maybe a bit panicked, but many of the first votes by 'neutral' editors were to delete.

There were two main objections to "yellowcake forgery". Some thought "forgery" was conclusionary and POV. I think consensus has established that it is not, and that should be an accepatable part of the name now. The other part was that "yellowcake" is insufficiently descriptive. I tend to agree with that; I think with the passage of time few people remember the word "yellowcake". In fact, at the time I named this article, the phrase "yellowcake forgery(ies)" did not show up on Google at all. Even now, the phrase isn't common, and I suspect that the 1000 or so ghits mostly derived one way or other from this article.

So I would prefer "Niger uranium forgery" to "Yellowcake forgery". But, I won't object to a move back to the old one either. Derex 21:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking "Iraq/Niger yellowcake allegation of Jan. 2003 SOTU address" or a variation. Then trash the article and link to the conclusive findings of the Senate Select Intelligence commitee inquiry on the use of intelligence in Iraq. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/iraq.html

(Niger section, pages 72-84)

It's quite clear in its findings, to the point where this wiki page should not exist. This page as I see today is a NPOV squabbling/edit war mess which denigrates the legitimacy of the wiki community. John. Batvette 03:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Those "findings" are already discussed in the article. If you have a particular problem with the page, let us know what it is. Unless you are willing to submit it to AfD, simply saying it should be trashed is not helpful. I think it has already survived such a POV attempt at deletion anyway. csloat 22:17, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

If this article is about the documents Martino gave Burba (as opposed to the "controversy"), it should be titled "Niger Documents". Not all of Martino's documents were forgeries. Some were genuine.