I don’t know who Mr. Dacted is but he’s in trouble
JJ Horner has reviewed the Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on IRAQ so you don’t have to:
(U) Conclusion 12. Until October 2002 when the Intelligence Community obtained the forged foreign language documents[9] on the Iraq-Niger uranium deal, it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reporting and other available intelligence.
November 3rd, 2005 at 4:11 pm
That report directly contradicts, among others, the Duelfer report, which was far more thorough. Basically, it was a partisan hack job and Democrats were stupid to sign off on it. Wilson has rebutted many of the conclusions of the report:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/10/30/18754/437
And I know you don’t trust Wilson or TPM, but they back up their assertions with sources.
November 3rd, 2005 at 5:17 pm
The Duelfer report also mentions “dual-use” technology and Saddam’s intent to reactivate his WMD programs as soon as the American Left, the French, the Chinese, and the Russians were duped into removing the sanctions.
More on the Duelfer report:
http://washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20041007-092535-2936r.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1008/p08s03-comv.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1323471,00.html
You are correct that I don’t trust Wilson. And I understand it is pretty easy to smear the entire administration argument for going to war with the after-the-fact assertion that Libby is a liar, as some are doing. That doesn’t change the fact that Bush’s intelligence for WMD and going to war is EXACTLY the same as the Clinton Administrations reasonings behind the 1998 Executive Order calling for regime change.
Apparently intelligence is more believable when it comes while Clinton is in office, as opposed to Bush being in office.
My favorite link:
http://www.nationalreview.com/babbin/babbin200310070826.asp
Thanks,
Jon
November 3rd, 2005 at 5:56 pm
A little more:
Was Joe Wilson asked to determine if a sale took place or if the Iraq government made an effort to buy? His report (http://wizbangblog.com/archives/006664.php) suggests that he answer the “did they buy” question, but didn’t address the “tried to buy” question. Trying to buy could include anything up to, and including, calling the owners/operators of the mines and asking a price. I understand that the British still stand behind their intelligence, and that an official from Niger has refuted part of Wilson’s claims. More here (http://yglesias.typepad.com/matthew/2004/07/the_uk_on_niger.html).
Thanks again,
Jon
November 4th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Jon, your claim that someone was trying to dupe “the American Left, the French, the Chinese, and the Russians” into ending sanctions does not jibe well with the fact that an American Left President kept sanctions in place for eight years, reinforced by occasional bombings, and went beyond sanctions in calling for regime change. Meanwhile, over 2,000 corporations, many affiliated with oil and military industries and right-wing politics worked their way around the sanctions via the corrupt UN oil-for-food program.
You don’t even have the players listed on the correct side of the scorecard, so your attempt to equate vague calls for regime change with calls for a multibillion-dollar, hundred-thousand-troop commitment to invasion and forcible regime change are not very convincing. Furthermore, the intelligence used by the Clinton administration is not the same as that used by Bush, since Bush inserted a network of unreliable Iraqi exiles lead by Ahmad Chalabi high into the Executive Branch chain-of-command through the newly created Pentagon Office of Special Plans. Bush swallowed Chalabi’s lies whole and belched up dire warnings of mushroom clouds based on scant evidence from shaky informants.