The result of the Wilson investigation is well known—it contradicted the claims of Bush that Saddam had attempted to purchase uranium in Africa. That finding by Ambassador Wilson did not fit with what Bush and Cheney wanted since it was intelligence that did not support the contention that Saddam was working on nuclear weapons. It disproved the scare tactic of the mushroom clouds that Bush and Cheney used to convince Congress to allow Bush to invade Iraq.

.

Col, do you understand Wilson was shown to be wrong, and a political hack?

IslandDog No Wilson was NOT proven to be wrong. There was NO EVIDENCE to support the attempt of Saddam to purchase the Yellow Cake

No YOU'RE WRONG yet again! I see you "also" conviently forgot about the "500 tons" of yellow cake that they "did" find in Iraq!

The Butler Report After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford. The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium: Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. 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. The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well. Butler Report: 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. Link For that reason, Wilson himself has publicly dismissed the significance of the 1999 meeting. He said on NBC’s Meet the Press May 2, 2004: Wilson: …At that meeting, uranium was not discussed. It would be a tragedy to think that we went to war over a conversation in which uranium was not discussed because the Niger official was sufficiently sophisticated to think that perhaps he might have wanted to discuss uranium at some later date "Reasonable to Assess" At this point the CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence." Reasonable, that is, until documents from an Italian magazine journalist showed up that seemed to prove an Iraq-Niger deal had actually been signed. The Intelligence Committee said the CIA should have been quicker to investigate the authenticity of those documents, which had "obvious problems" and were soon exposed as fakes by the International Atomic Energy Agency. "We No Longer Believe" Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA. Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words. Soon after, on July 6, 2003, former ambassador Wilson went public in a New York Times opinion piece with his rebuttal of Bush's 16 words, saying that if the President was referring to Niger "his conclusion was not borne out by the facts as I understood them," and that "I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Wilson has since used much stronger language, calling Bush's 16 words a "lie" in an Internet chat sponsored by the Kerry campaign. Sources for above article: President George W. Bush, “ State of the Union ,” 28 January 2003. Chairman Lord Butler of Brockwell, “Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction,” 14 July 2004. “Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq,” Select Committee on Intelligence United States Senate, 7 July 2004. Walter Pincus, “ CIA Did Not Share Doubt on Iraq Data; Bush Used Report Of Uranium Bid ,” Washington Post, 12 June 2003. Mohamed ElBaradei, “ The Status of Nuclear Inspections in Iraq: An Update ,” Statement to the United Nations Security Council by International Atomic Energy Agency Director General, 7 March 2003. Joseph Wilson, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa,” New York Times, 6 July 2003. Joseph Wilson,The Official Kerry-Edwards BLOG: "Transcript of Chat with Ambassador Joe Wilson," 29 Oct 2003. Michael Kinsley, "...Or More Lies From The Usual Suspects?," Washington Post, 16 July 2003: A23. Ari Fleischer, “ Press Gaggle ,” 7 July 2003. Ari Fleischer and Dr. Condoleeza Rice, “ Press Gaggle ,” 11 July 2003. George Tenet, "Statement by George J. Tenet Director of Central Intelligence," Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 11 July 2003.

You obviously need to do some more reading. Or this from Wikipedia:

European and British intelligence reports The front page of the June 28, 2004 Financial Times carried a report from their national security correspondent, Mark Huband, describing a strong consensus among analysts that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its yellow cake uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China. The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors. [citation needed] The Sunday Times of London dated August 1, 2004 contains an interview with an Italian source describing his role in the forgeries. The source said he was sorry to have played a role in passing along false intelligence. [2] Although the claims made in the British intelligence report regarding Iraq's interest in yellowcake ore from Niger were never withdrawn, the CIA and Department of State could not verify them and are said to have thought the claims were "highly dubious." [3] Link

I love it klink, your arguements are so easy to shred with very little effort.

Hey political hack,

This is an excerpt from a formerly classified document. Since you are supposed to be a former military man I assume you had a security clearance so you would know the format to be correct as well as the verbage.

( ) The CIA's DO gave the former ambassador's information a grade of "good," which means that it added to the IC's body of understanding on the issue, ( ). The possible grades are unsatisfactory, satisfactory, good, excellent, and outstanding, which, according to the Deputy Chief of CPD, are very subjective. SENTENCE DELETED The reports officer said that a "good" grade was merited because the information responded to at least some of the outstanding questions in the Intelligence Community, but did not provide substantial new information. He said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerien officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerien Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.

(U) IC analysts had a fairly consistent response to the intelligence report based on the former ambassador's trip in that no one believed it added a great deal of new information to the Iraq-Niger uranium story. An INR analyst said when he saw the report he believed that it corroborated the INR's position, but said that the "report could be read in different ways." He said the report was credible, but did not give it a lot of attention because he was busy with other things.

(U) DIA and CIA analysts said that when they saw the intelligence report they did not believe that it supplied much new information and did not think that it clarified the story on the alleged Iraq-Niger uranium deal. They did not find Nigerien denials that they had discussed uranium sales with Iraq as very surprising because they had no expectation that Niger would admit to such an agreement if it did exist. The analysts did, however, find it interesting that the former Nigerien Prime Minister said an Iraqi delegation had visited Niger for what he believed was to discuss uranium sales.

(U) Because CIA analysts did not believe that the report added any new information to clarify the issue, they did not use the report to produce any further analytical products or highlight the report for policymakers. For the same reason, CIA's briefer did not brief the Vice President on the report, despite the Vice President's previous questions about the issue.

( ) On March 25, 2002, the DO issued a third and final intelligence report from the same "[foreign] government service." The report said that the 2000 agreement by Niger to provide uranium to Iraq specified that 500 tons of uranium per year would be delivered in .

( )As in the two previous reports, the government service was not identified as the foreign government service. The foreign government service did not provide the DO with information about its source and the DO, to date, remains uncertain as to how the foreign government service collected the information in the three intelligence reports. There were no obvious inconsistencies in the names of officials mentioned or the dates of the transactions in any of the three reports. Of the seven names mentioned in the reporting, two were former high ranking officials who were the individuals in the positions described in the reports at the time described and five were lower ranking officials. Of the five lower ranking, two were not the individuals in the positions described in the reports, however, these do not appear to be names or positions with which intelligence analysts would have been familiar. For example, an INR analyst who had recently returned from a position as Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Niger told Committee staff that he did not notice any inconsistencies with the names of the officials mentioned. The only mistake in any of the reports regarding dates, is that one date, July 7, 2000, is said to be a Wednesday in the report, but was actually a Friday.

Let me hear how it was all Mr. Bush's fault. I just don't see how the information was faked by our government since it was investigated and the report seems objective. if you wish to see the full report I can post it but I doubt you will read it. It makes Mr. Wilson out to be less than truthful, but you knew this already.

This HE uranium was shipped to Russia where it was made relatively harmless by a process known as 'isotopic dilution' — but only after the Iraqis dragged their heels for more than 6 months following the cease fire by playing a cat and mouse game with the IAEA's inspectors. The history of those early IAEA inspections can be found here and is an eye opening look at both the gullibility of the IAEA and the lengths to which Saddam sought to keep as much of his nuclear bomb making capability as he could.

Bullshit!

The United Nations nuclear watchdog has accounted for most of the uranium feared stolen from Iraq's largest nuclear site, Tuwaitha, reports say. The prestigious US-based journal Science said inspectors had found virtually all the missing material, quoting an unnamed official from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). There has been no official comment. Separately US President George W Bush said looting could be one of the reasons why the former Iraqi regime's suspected arsenal of weapons of mass destruction has not yet been found. "For more than a decade, Saddam Hussein went to great lengths to hide his weapons from the world," Mr Bush said in his weekly radio address. "And in the regime's final days, documents and suspected weapons sites were looted and burned." Inventory checks IAEA spokeswoman Melissa Fleming told BBC News Online that a team of IAEA inspectors which began visiting the Tuwaitha facility earlier this month was continuing its work. The seven-member team is checking nuclear material against the agency's inventories. They are expected to report by the end of next week. Tuwaitha was heavily looted for a period during the war, and there has been particular concern about barrels which once stored low-enriched uranium, known as "yellow cake". The barrels were emptied and sold to local people for $2 each by looters. Many used the barrels to hold drinking water or food, or to wash clothes.

How are the actions of the White House to tell the Press the identity of our CIA agent and try and destroy Wilson justified???????

It is not justified. It is also not been proven to be the case. First she was not an agent she was an analyst there is no restriction on her identity. I like your thinking that telling the truth about the distortions told by Mr. Wilson is an attempt to destroy the man. lol Notice no one has been arrested or charged with releasing the name of his wife a supposed agent. Since no one has been charged then there must not have been a crime since the investigation is over and all they have is one person who supposedly lied about who he heard the news from and who he told first.

What Wilson reported was correct.

What Mr. Wilson reoprted is in post #5 with the other two investigations that comprised the intelligence report. You seem to have ignored that information again.

The evidence was FAKE.

No proof of this. A lot of speculation but no proof.

Remember the CBS Bush National Guard Documents?

This has been proven as faked. So much so that the people involved in the fake reports and documents have been removed from CBS. You give no creedence to reports that have not been disproven but you give blind faith to reports that have been debunked. Can you say political hack? I am so sorry, I don't mean to attack your relligion of hate. It is your belief and you have the right to believe in God, or trees, or CBS because in this country you have the freedom of religion. Religion is the belief of things unseen. No proof is needed to believe in whatever god you wish.

She had been an undercover agent and by outing her ANY other undercover agents were in danger.

The law states that if she as not had a covert status in over 5 years she is no longer covert. She had been out of the covert business for 8 years.

The CIA and Justice Dept thought this was so serious that a Special Prosecutor was established and a lengthy ands costly investigation has been conducted.

And no one procicuted for the non crime.

Sworn testimony in this trial has been made that both Libby and Rove did tell reporters about Mrs. Wilson being a CIA Operative.

No law was broken. Mr. Wilson was not being punished for anything. And if you are going to tell this story then tell the truth. She was an analyst not an operative and the reason why her name came up at all was because Mr. Wilson lied saying he was chosen by the Vice-President. His wife was the one that got her husband the job. In correcting his lie people wanted to know who got him the job if not the Vice-President. How do you answer that without bringing up her name? As an attack it was said that her name was used to punish Mr. Wilson for his NYT article.

Just in case you did not know it was Richard Armatage that first gave out her name. But he was given immunity from prosecution so there is no one they can go after. LOL I suggest you try paying attention to the news, it might help you understand world events. Then again maybe not.

Cheney is involved up to his eye balls in trying to discredit Wilson. All three should be on trial!

I was right again. You did not bother to read post #5 a classified document that tells the story of Mr. Wilson and his report. He discredited himself.

Everything about the way the White House handled this was WRONG!!!!!

Only because you are ignorant of what happened try reading.

AND FAILED TO FIND "ANY" EVIDENCE!

Please do not confuse the issue with facts or logic, it makes the kool-aid taste funny.

Libby admitted under OATH yesterday that Cheney and he talked about outing Mrs. Wilson as part of their efforts to punish Ambassador Wilson for his report that showed the documents Bush used to justify Saddam's attempt to purchase Uranium were FAKE!

Sorry but your less than impressive ability to provided unbiased facts has destroyed any credibility you once had. Show me the transcript.

Bullshit col! Read and learn!

Thank you my friend for pointing out the obvious to the political hack. I did not believe that Mr. Libby took the stand because the proicution was still presenting the case. The defence goes last. One more thing that the col did not know know about American justice system.

(funny how the topic drifted out of topic in the first 10 posts..)

anyway. If there was no crime commited, what Scooter is being tried for?

The real question here is why would Bushco attempt to discredit a man telling the truth.

Answer: Because they were lying to start the war.

If you have a different answer I'd love to hear the response of a republican who supports Bushcos attempt to destroy Wilsons credibility. '


Why attempt to destroy the credibility of a man telling the truth.

Bushco did not call Wilson a liar.

I have yet to have a republican who supports this admin answer that question.

The last person I would expect to do something like this is the President of the US>

I'm glad to see you hold Bush to the same level of accountability as Clinton.

Not.

Another person that does not do research but seems to know it all. Setting the record straght is not a bad thing. Mr. Wilson discreditied himself. He was the one that told the world that he was sent on the mission by the Vice-President. In reality he was chosen by his wife. Saying that is not an attempt to smear the man but to clear up a lie he told.



You don't do much reading, studying or research, or you would know that this is not true.



I did that already with the posting of the declassified report that Mr. Wilson made. You have not read it because you go to hate sites instead of looking for the truth. As with col Gene facts just get in the way of your religion of hate.



I don't know who this bushco is. Wilson told some lies and the story was corrected and once that was done the new hate story was how people were trying to discredit Mr. Wilson ignoring the facts that he lied. So in truth he was called a liar but that was ignored for a better story.



right, I am glad you feel that way because the President did not do such a vile thing.



You are wrong, When a President lies to the people they shold be held accountable. I just have not found any lies told by Mr. Bush. Mr. Clinton only made one mistake he Lied under oath the rest was politics that I did not get involved in.