Well, maybe Iraq had Al-Qaeda ties after all.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That's one way of putting it.

Another way would be that he went to Niger before war with Iraq was even on the public table, and thus he unlikely to have been unsympathetc to Administration plans for a war, as he was unlikely to have known about it.

Iraqs been on the table since August 1991. As many have stated, Cheney and others were pushing for war with Iraq as early as 1998. And of course the possibility of war with Iraq was mentioned immediately after 9/11/2001.

[GePap]

Given the tract record of the Telegraph, until this story is picked up elsewhere, I will be wary of it. After all, would not Alawi (whom you place so much trust in) have the ability to speak to multiple news agencies about this? And why not pick out bigger ones? Maybe a big American concern? Would he not know Fox New's number? (how more firednyl news org could you get?)

As for something being newsowrthy if false? how could it be?

[GePap]

Notice how this one memo seems to in one single package confrim so much of what the admin and its supporters said- on side, it ties Iraq to Al qaeda, and for some magical reason, on this very same handwritten memo, the story about uranium importation is magically confirmed! I mean, certainly, when writting memos make sure to state all highly related matters, like Atta meeting with Abu Nidal (notice how both are dead, enither can confirm or deny) and Niger uranium!

Too bad he didn;t have time to certify were all the WMD's were,. but you just know that was next!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Given the tract record of the Telegraph, until this story is picked up elsewhere, I will be wary of it. After all, would not Alawi (whom you place so much trust in) have the ability to speak to multiple news agencies about this? And why not pick out bigger ones? Maybe a big American concern? Would he not know Fox New's number? (how more firednyl news org could you get?)

As for something being newsowrthy if false? how could it be?

1. I did not say I put trust in Alawi - (I dont care for him, he leans to the CIA lets put ex-officers in charge of Iraq school of things) but that if he said it its newsworthy, for the reasons i explained above.

2. How could something false be newsworthy - er, if Al Gore said tomorrow that Howard Dean ran huge deficits as governor of Vermont - that would be demonstrably false - but the BIG question would be - why did Gore say that, since Gore has been supportive of Dean?
To return to reality, why would a CIA Iraqi ally say something that contradicts the CIA line on Iraq? Beats me.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Notice how this one memo seems to in one single package confrim so much of what the admin and its supporters said- on side, it ties Iraq to Al qaeda, and for some magical reason, on this very same handwritten memo, the story about uranium importation is magically confirmed! I mean, certainly, when writting memos make sure to state all highly related matters, like Atta meeting with Abu Nidal (notice how both are dead, enither can confirm or deny) and Niger uranium!

Well the obvious implication is that Nidal was killed precisely to prevent him spilling the beans on this. Do we have any good explanation of why Nidal was killed?

I agree that the inclusion of Niger seems fishy.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Ned
Well they have Saddam now. Maybe he will talk, although I doubt it.

The NY Times again yesterday reported the controversy concerning Atta's June 2001 visit to Praque. Buried deep in its story was a reference to Atta's 2000 visit to Praque which even the Times admits is confirmed. I have no idea why the Times places such emphasis on the lack of confirmation of the one trip when the earlier trip and contacts with Iraqi intelligence has been confirm.

The real question is whether Atta was working on the plot in 2000 when Atta contacted Iraqi intelligence.

I take it, Ned, that the war in Iraq would have been justified had Iraqi intelligence known about Atta's plans before.
We all agree that nothing of this has been proven, but...

What you are saying here is that it is justified to start a war, kill thousands of civilians, overthrow a (corrupt, I admit) government, because the intelligence services of the said country had heard something about terrorist acts. Then again, would you expect an embargoed and humiliated government (regardless of how justified would that embargo be) to warn their worst enemy about a potential threat?
Put it another way: Al-Qaeda decides to strike against secular Baas. They plan an attack which could kill many civilians. Would you expect the CIA to call Saddam and warn him: "dude, Muslim fanatics will try to overthrow you".
Atta and his guys didn't need Saddam's help anyway. They bought ceramic knives and followed flying lessons. I could have done this with my pals had I felt the need to.

The truth is, Saddam can't be dumb enough to ignore the threat 9/11 was for his own regime. Stop being Bush's little ***** and admit the hard reality: September 11 was the wonderful casus belli even Rumsfeld couldn't have dreamed of. The new pro-American administration in Iraq will serve many purposes: first, it will allow America to strangle China's oil supply should the need arise (there is still Iran, but controlling Iraq is a step in the right direction). Second, it will replace Saudi Arabia, which has been failing America recently, as their strategic ally in the region.
WMD? ha ha ha. ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Do they give a **** if Saddam wants to "chemically pacify" Kurds? Do you even know how much resources it takes to fund a nuclear program? It requires billions upon billions, and huge, kilometers-wide complexes that could never be subterranean. Not counting the required international expertise, and the difficulty to find uranium and turn it into plutonium. Now, say Saddam has solved these problems. First, we can expect at least 10 years before he gets a warhead, and more resaonably 20+ years. And probably a few days before US intelligence discover the existence of the project.

This war has always been about imperialism. It reminds me of the good old days of the Roman latifundia, a principle by which Roman senators got personal property of the land conquered by the army. Exactly in the same way oil companies will get to exploit Iraq's ressources, while Cheney's Halliburton receives billions worth of contracts.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
2. How could something false be newsworthy - er, if Al Gore said tomorrow that Howard Dean ran huge deficits as governor of Vermont - that would be demonstrably false - but the BIG question would be - why did Gore say that, since Gore has been supportive of Dean?
To return to reality, why would a CIA Iraqi ally say something that contradicts the CIA line on Iraq? Beats me.

Why do you classify Alawi as a staunch CIA apparatchik? He looses nothing by making such a claim; after all, how could the CIA know this if all the proof of it is a single handwritten memo? and if the paper is false, no problem for the CIA.

There really is not big event for Alawi saying this, anymore than there was big news when the exiles made all these WMD claims prior to the war..they are vested partiesd with a reaosn to tie Iraq to 9/11.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I take it, Ned, that the war in Iraq would have been justified had Iraqi intelligence known about Atta's plans before.
We all agree that nothing of this has been proven, but...

What you are saying here is that it is justified to start a war, kill thousands of civilians, overthrow a (corrupt, I admit) government,

300,000 people in mass graves is corrupt? I thought corruption was about money. I thought there were other words for govts that engage in genocide.

But i guess that would take away from your point about thousand of dead civilians - since it would be clear that the war saved the lives of Iraqi civilians.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


it was never proven a lie. The US sent an ex-diplo who was unsympathetic to war on Iraq to Niger, where he asked some officials if it was true, and they denied it. That was all.

You mean that the supposed documents bore the forged signature of an ex-official who hadn't been part of the Niger government for years before the date of the alleged documents?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Why do you classify Alawi as a staunch CIA apparatchik? He looses nothing by making such a claim; after all, how could the CIA know this if all the proof of it is a single handwritten memo? and if the paper is false, no problem for the CIA.

There really is not big event for Alawi saying this, anymore than there was big news when the exiles made all these WMD claims prior to the war..they are vested partiesd with a reaosn to tie Iraq to 9/11.

Why do i classify Allawi as a CIA friend - cause while I dont have cites handy, everything ive seen about him has indicated that he is such, and that the CIA was manuevering for him and against Chalabi etc. And he was leader of CIA sponsored 1996 coup attempt, etc.

What does he lose - well if its believed, it makes Feith and Wolfie look better, and the CIA does NOT want to see that. How does the CIA know this based on one memo 2 possibilities 1. They have other evidence or 2 The dont know it - 2A - They dont know it but are encouraging Allawi to float it for some nefarious reason or 2b - Allawi is acting on his own.

well of course theyre vested parties - - but thats not specific enough - Allawi CIA sponsors like Chalabis DOD sponsors supported the WMD claims. But Allawi's CIA sponsors have NEVER liked the stories about Atta - unlike Chalabis DOD sponsors. Which is why i said if this had come from Chalabi, Id yawn along with you - but it didnt, it came from Alawi, and that is puzzling.

[Fake Boris]

Lord of the Mark,

We can't deny that the war in Iraq has probably saved lives- on a long-term perspective. That is, if we don't count the indirect rise in Muslim fundamentalism in the Arab world, and a possible civil war if US doesn't leave the country fully pacified.

But then again, that would be forgiving the American embargo as the main cause of Iraqi civilian casualties (more so than Saddam's crimes). It is widely documented- by UN employees, and diplomats of many countries- that US diplomacy worked hard to prevent aid from reaching Iraq, presumably to help sow dissent agains Saddam's regime.

Reminds me of the "prisoner axiom". Starve a jailed man. When you give him soup, he'll see the guard as his savior.
Embargo a country. When this embargo is lifted by annexation of said country, it will obsiously save lives.

(As for "corrupt", while your remark is purely cosmetic, I will agree that Saddam's regime is much worse than this. I could have used a more appropriate word.)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


You mean that the supposed documents bore the forged signature of an ex-official who hadn't been part of the Niger government for years before the date of the alleged documents?

the documents were forgeries - the possibility of Iraq seeking uranium in Niger was not however proven a lie.

Robert Novak

"Wilson's report that an Iraqi purchase of uranium yellowcake from Niger was highly unlikely was regarded by the CIA as less than definitive, and it is doubtful Tenet ever saw it. Certainly, President Bush did not, prior to his 2003 State of the Union address, when he attributed reports of attempted uranium purchases to the British government. That the British relied on forged documents made Wilson's mission, nearly a year earlier, the basis of furious Democratic accusations of burying intelligence though the report was forgotten by the time the president spoke.

Reluctance at the White House to admit a mistake has led Democrats ever closer to saying the president lied the country into war. Even after a belated admission of error last Monday, finger-pointing between Bush administration agencies continued. Messages between Washington and the presidential entourage traveling in Africa hashed over the mission to Niger.

Wilson's mission was created after an early 2002 report by the Italian intelligence service about attempted uranium purchases from Niger, derived from forged documents prepared by what the CIA calls a "con man." This misinformation, peddled by Italian journalists, spread through the U.S. government. The White House, State Department and Pentagon, and not just Vice President **** Cheney, asked the CIA to look into it.

That's where Joe Wilson came in. His first public notice had come in 1991 after 15 years as a Foreign Service officer when, as U.S. charge in Baghdad, he risked his life to shelter in the embassy some 800 Americans from Saddam Hussein's wrath. My partner Rowland Evans reported from the Iraqi capital in our column that Wilson showed "the stuff of heroism." President George H.W. Bush the next year named him ambassador to Gabon, and President Bill Clinton put him in charge of African affairs at the National Security Council until his retirement in 1998.

Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him. "I will not answer any question about my wife," Wilson told me.

After eight days in the Niger capital of Niamey (where he once served), Wilson made an oral report in Langley that an Iraqi uranium purchase was "highly unlikely," though he also mentioned in passing that a 1988 Iraqi delegation tried to establish commercial contacts. CIA officials did not regard Wilson's intelligence as definitive, being based primarily on what the Niger officials told him and probably would have claimed under any circumstances. The CIA report of Wilson's briefing remains classified."

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Which is why i said if this had come from Chalabi, Id yawn along with you - but it didnt, it came from Alawi, and that is puzzling.

...or more simply, the Telegraph has added whatever name they found among the prominent Iraqis to make their forged story look more credible

You shouldn't be puzzled too much by anything written in the Telegraph's article, until you see something about it somewhere else.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Lord of the Mark,


Reminds me of the "prisoner axiom". Starve a jailed man. When you give him soup, he'll see the guard as his savior.
Embargo a country. When this embargo is lifted by annexation of said country, it will obsiously save lives.

No ones annexing Iraq.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Spiffor

...or more simply, the Telegraph has added whatever name they found among the prominent Iraqis to make their forged story look more credible

You shouldn't be puzzled too much by anything written in the Telegraph's article, until you see something about it somewhere else.

then allawi will deny it tomorrow and the story will die.