Scooter Libby found guilty.

[Playboypenguin]

Show me where in the Butler report or the original information where it says "Saddam HAS". I am not finding that in the original reports or the Butler report. I am only seeing information that is preferced by qualifiers such as "may have", "could possibly", or "is likely". The closet thing are sentences that say "information available at the time indicated a beliefe that Saddam has". That is not the same as say "saddam has". The meaning changes quite a bit when you black out the qualifier.

Granted I have not read all 180+ pages yet.

EDIT: If you can show me this I will be willing to alter my opinion of this instance from "he lied" to "he expoited questionable intel for his own needs." That might not sound like much of a change but in reality it is a huge difference.

I will still hold the opinion that the man is a liar though. I just saw the other night a series of several clips of the president making statements then clips of him six months or so later saying he never made the statement on the first clip. That is pretty hard to dispute.

 

[SecDef]

JP..

crap, I leave for 24 hours and there are pages of posts to catch up on.

I'm afraid I am going to have to disregard posts #143, #144, #145, and #151 because frankly, they are quotes of speculative journalism.

Because of those posts (and quite frankly if you want to discuss Plame and her role and her testimony, we can start a new thread) i need to reply to post #152 with a "no"

Stage2 hit it right with his link to factcheck.com in post #149.

Jimpeel wrote: Also note that Bush said "Africa" and not Niger. Niger was not the only African country which was approached.

Which other countries were approached?

 

[STAGE 2]

I will still hold the opinion that the man is a liar though. I just saw the other night a series of several clips of the president making statements then clips of him six months or so later saying he never made the statement on the first clip. That is pretty hard to dispute.

You're missing the point.

Even today we really don't know for sure what went down between Saddam and these African countries. We don't really know whether his delegation went there for yellow cake or chocolate cake. At the time, some intel suggests that they did.

However, in the absence of any definitive intelligence, that still doesn't exist today, Bush can't be a liar. In order to lie, a person has to know what they are saying is false. Even today we really don't know for sure whether Saddam was seeking uranium. Its entirely possible he was and its entirely possible he wasnt.

You can blame him from ignoring relevant information, or even cherry picking. But calling him a liar simply isnt supported by the facts. There was information back then and today that would support the conclusion that Saddam was seeking uranium.

Part of being the president is making decisions. As with most things in life, sometimes these decisions need to be made without all the needed information. I can only imagine that this is intensified to a ridiculious degree where intelligence and terrorism is concerned. Would it have been better for Bush to say in his speech, "Evidence suggest that...", no question. Do I think he was lying to the American people, no. I'm not going to defame someone for questionable syntax.

 

[Playboypenguin]

No, Bush IS a liar. There is undisputable evidence that he has lied about practice and policy on several occasions (like in the clips I mentioned). The only question now is did he lie in this particular instance. We will have to wait and see what the forthcoming investigations decide in this matter.

He lied about a connetion between Saddam and 9/11.
He then lied about whether he had ever said there was a connection.
He lied about having ever said "stay the course".
He lied about never wiretapping phones without a court order.
He lied in may '03 about finding weapons labs in Iraq while giving an interview to a Polish TV station.
He lied and said congress was privy to all and the same intel as where he and his staff.
He lied about how noone could have predicted the failure of the levies during katrina.
He lied about social security figures.
and so on and so on...

I find it a bit hard to believe any man that will never go under oath or allow his cabinet to go under oath during an investigation.

 

[jimpeel]

Show me where in the Butler report or the original information where it says "Saddam HAS". I am not finding that in the original reports or the Butler report. I am only seeing information that is preferced by qualifiers such as "may have", "could possibly", or "is likely". The closet thing are sentences that say "information available at the time indicated a beliefe that Saddam has". That is not the same as say "saddam has". The meaning changes quite a bit when you black out the qualifier.

SHOW ME, SHOW ME, SHOW ME! You demand we show you what you want when you want it but REFUSE to present your evidence when we ask for it numerous times. You make specious statements like "It does not take alot of searching to find info that supports what I said." but refuse to do that search and post your proof.

Now you ask for "proof" that does not exist because no one -- let me repeat that -- NO ONE has ever said "has". So this is your way of weaseling out of having to support your position?

You have, so far, posted one -- COUNT 'EM -- ONE link in post #105 and that was to http://www.angus-reid.com which writes its own "news articles" based on current events. The next closest was "I saw it on CNN". Yet when we ask for credible links you squat and pee.

SecDef called me a troll for far less than what you are doing. At least I back up what I say with current articles and official government documents as does he.

Granted I have not read all 180+ pages yet.

And you won't, either. You refuse to be confused with facts as your mind is already made up.

EDIT: If you can show me this I will be willing to alter my opinion of this instance from "he lied" to "he expoited questionable intel for his own needs." That might not sound like much of a change but in reality it is a huge difference.

See above.

I will still hold the opinion that the man is a liar though. I just saw the other night a series of several clips of the president making statements then clips of him six months or so later saying he never made the statement on the first clip. That is pretty hard to dispute.

"I just saw ..." Let me guess ... CNN?

 

[jimpeel]

crap, I leave for 24 hours and there are pages of posts to catch up on.

Sorry.

I'm afraid I am going to have to disregard posts #143, #144, #145, and #151 because frankly, they are quotes of speculative journalism.

Just read the highlighted portions.

Because of those posts (and quite frankly if you want to discuss Plame and her role and her testimony, we can start a new thread) i need to reply to post #152 with a "no"

The Plame testimony is germane to the Libby case and will be used at appeal.

Stage2 hit it right with his link to factcheck.com in post #149.

Don't try to tell that to Playboypenguin.

Quote:
Jimpeel wrote: Also note that Bush said "Africa" and not Niger. Niger was not the only African country which was approached.

Which other countries were approached?

I knew that would be asked. I will have to find where I read that but it wasn't a news article or speculation from a "I love Bush" site. Give me some time on that one. I won't do a "Pp" on you, if you know what I mean.

 

[jimpeel]

I will still hold the opinion that the man is a liar though. I just saw the other night a series of several clips of the president making statements then clips of him six months or so later saying he never made the statement on the first clip. That is pretty hard to dispute.

Are you willing to make the same statement about William Jefferson Blythe Clinton?

 

[jimpeel]

He lied about a connetion between Saddam and 9/11.
He then lied about whether he had ever said there was a connection.
He lied about having ever said "stay the course".
He lied about never wiretapping phones without a court order.
He lied in may '03 about finding weapons labs in Iraq while giving an interview to a Polish TV station.
He lied and said congress was privy to all and the same intel as where he and his staff.
He lied about how noone could have predicted the failure of the levies during katrina.
He lied about social security figures.

And you have links to all of these allegations? Oh, yeah, that's right. You don't do links. You just "saw it on CNN".

 

[jimpeel]

But let me address each of these allegations as it will never come from your side of the equation.

He lied about a connetion between Saddam and 9/11.

The connection has now been established that Saddam was in liege with Bin Laden, the author and financier of 9-11.

He then lied about whether he had ever said there was a connection.

You made that one up.

He lied about having ever said "stay the course".

He has never backed down on winning this war or how long it would take or his willingness to "stay the course". I personally have not heaqrd him use the term "stay the course" but I will look that up.

He lied about never wiretapping phones without a court order.

The wiretapping was of FOREIGN PHONES OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS CALLING INTO THE UNITED STATES. Your side immediately accused him of "wiretapping the phones of thousands of innocent Americans" WHICH NEVER OCCURRED. The wiretaps were on telephones outside of the United States.

He lied in may '03 about finding weapons labs in Iraq while giving an interview to a Polish TV station.

I would ask for a link but why bother.

He lied and said congress was privy to all and the same intel as where he and his staff.

The Senate Intelligence panel is privy to the intel, not the entire Congress. Thetre is a "need to know" basis even in Conggress and we all have witnessed how good they are at keeping their mouths closed.

He lied about how noone could have predicted the failure of the levies during katrina.

Now he is supposed to be prescient? He can tell the future?

Here, let me give you a chance to call ME a liar "No one could have predicted the failure of the levies during hurricane Katrina especially noting the FACT that Katrina MISSED NEW ORLEANS COMPLETELY."

He lied about social security figures.

WTF????????

 

[jimpeel]

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/22/bush-stay-the-course/

BUSH: We will stay the course. [8/30/06]

BUSH: We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq. [8/4/05]

BUSH: We will stay the course until the job is done, Steve. And the temptation is to try to get the President or somebody to put a timetable on the definition of getting the job done. We’re just going to stay the course. [12/15/03]

BUSH: And my message today to those in Iraq is: We’ll stay the course. [4/13/04]

BUSH: And that’s why we’re going to stay the course in Iraq. And that’s why when we say something in Iraq, we’re going to do it. [4/16/04]

BUSH: And so we’ve got tough action in Iraq. But we will stay the course. [4/5/04]

Digg It!

Full transcript:

STEPHANOPOULOS: James Baker says that he’s looking for something between “cut and run” and “stay the course.”

BUSH: Well, hey, listen, we’ve never been “stay the course,” George. We have been — we will complete the mission, we will do our job, and help achieve the goal, but we’re constantly adjusting to tactics. Constantly.

Okay, he did say "stay the course" but in context his meaning was we will continue to try to win this war.

In the Steffy interview he was saying that we will change tactics ie: not "stay the course" in a failed tactic but he never says we will not stay the course to win the war regardless of the tactic used.

Your side, of course, considers this a "lie".

 

[Playboypenguin]

JimPeel,

There are tons of link on the net that will take you straight to the transcripts and even videos of every instance I posted. it seems to me you just don't want to know the truth.

When you said the Butler report and other intel said '"Saddam has sought" I went and looked it up myself. After being unable to find it I came to you and asked where. I then said if you can show it to me I would be willing to adjust my position.

Your recent posts and unwillingness to even put the words "Bush's lies" in your web browser have spoken to your partisan and unbending thinking.

Maybe you have time to sit around and try and find wording that supports your agenda but most do not. The true way to learn something is to look up the facts yourself. I gave you the information you needed but you refuse to educate yourself to the trut because it does not support your narrow mindset.

I will do a couple examples for you though just to get you started.


Saddam & 9/11: Bush and Cheney both repeated the statement that there was a connection between Saddam and 9/11. Both men have since gone on record publicly and stated there is NO connection. The senate intel committee even found that Saddam had actively been trying to kill Al Qeada Leaders.

The levies/Katrina: They had been warned two years prior to katrina that the levies needed overhaul or they would fail in the face of a catagory 4 hurricane. Two days before the storm hit they were briefed in the situation room that the storm was going to be a catagory 4 and that the levies were in danger of failing. Sounds like people could predict the failure to me. Brown even admitted that they had been warned and had practiced evacuation drills the previous year.

A quote from Tim Russert "last summer FEMA, who reports to you, and the LSU Hurricane Center, and local and state officials did a simulated Hurricane Pam in which the levees broke. ... Thousands drowned."

The Times-Picayune published a five-part series in June 2002, in which it warned that if a large hurricane hit New Orleans, the city's levees would likely be topped or broken

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) director Michael Brown said, "That Category 4 hurricane caused the same kind of damage that we anticipated. So we planned for it two years ago. Last year, we exercised it. And unfortunately this year, we're implementing it."

Wiretapping: I do not know where you got the info that no American phones were tapped but that is completely wrong. Thousands of american lines were tapped, cell phone companies were ordered to turn over statements, and random keyword searches where done on domestic phone systems.

The fact that domestic phones were tapped without warrant (which the President has 3days after the tapp to obtain) is why the congress became involved. Bush claimed past presidents had done it so it was within his authority. He failed to state that after the "past presidents" did it FISA was created in 1978 to prevent it from every happening again.

 

[SecDef]

The Plame testimony is germane to the Libby case and will be used at appeal.

Interesting. I don't think anything new came out. Merely confirmation under oath what Plame has been claiming all along. How exactly would it be used as grounds for appeal?

I knew that would be asked. I will have to find where I read that but it wasn't a news article or speculation from a "I love Bush" site. Give me some time on that one.

Take your time. This is the first I've heard of other countries than Niger. I assume that he used "Africa" instead of "Niger" in the SOTU because someone thinks that using the word "Niger" out loud would be interpretted weirdly: either you pronounce it "nigh-jer" and risk confusion to offensing language, or you pronounce it "neesh-air" and come off as pretentious.

Are you willing to make the same statement about William Jefferson Blythe Clinton?

Bill lied. He was also taken to task for it. Did Newt go too far? Debatable.

The connection has now been established that Saddam was in liege with Bin Laden, the author and financier of 9-11.

There is an interesting disconnect between the 9/11 commission's findings in June, 2004 reported here and the Senate Intelligence Committee phase II report. The phase II report isn't clear in its conclusion on this matter on page 66 (I need a lawyer to interpret it )

The wiretapping was of FOREIGN PHONES OF SUSPECTED TERRORISTS CALLING INTO THE UNITED STATES. Your side immediately accused him of "wiretapping the phones of thousands of innocent Americans" WHICH NEVER OCCURRED. The wiretaps were on telephones outside of the United States.

This is something Stage2 took up in another thread, too. The current FBI NSL letter scandal is pretty laser focussed on just this topic. I think I will have to punt to Glenn Greenwald who discusses it here initially and again here (this second link is nice because it takes congress to task for shirking their oversight responsibilities. Glenn' resume is on the left side of the link (once you get there, just skip past the ad.) Very good writer, and I admit I cheer when I read him sometimes. He also is very good about providing links.

The Senate Intelligence panel is privy to the intel, not the entire Congress. Thetre is a "need to know" basis even in Conggress and we all have witnessed how good they are at keeping their mouths closed.

Congress as a whole doesn't get all the info as you say. However, the Senate Intelligence Committee didn't have all the intel the white house said. WaPo lays it out pretty well.

Now he is supposed to be prescient? He can tell the future?
Here, let me give you a chance to call ME a liar "No one could have predicted the failure of the levies during hurricane Katrina especially noting the FACT that Katrina MISSED NEW ORLEANS COMPLETELY."

Well, I think this was as reference to Snopes and the National Geographic article. A better example is the 2001 article in Scientific American that discussed the peril NO was in and why (loss of delta marchland) and they even ran computer simulations.

 

[STAGE 2]

He lied about a connetion between Saddam and 9/11.
He then lied about whether he had ever said there was a connection.
He lied about having ever said "stay the course".
He lied about never wiretapping phones without a court order.
He lied in may '03 about finding weapons labs in Iraq while giving an interview to a Polish TV station.
He lied and said congress was privy to all and the same intel as where he and his staff.
He lied about how noone could have predicted the failure of the levies during katrina.
He lied about social security figures.
and so on and so on...

If the evidence is indisputable then it shouldn't be hard to post. Off the top of my head, I don't ever recall Bush making any kind of statement that said Iraq was involved in 9/11. He did talk about al quaeda being in Iraq, which is correct. Also, regarding the levies in NO, Bush's statement was regarding the breaching of these levies. Bush acknowledged the topping of the levies. There are completely different. Water running over your bathtub is far different than water collapsing the side of your tub. None of the computer simulations anticipated a breach.

My guess is that the computers didn't anticipate the millions of dollars to maintain the levies would be diverted elsewhere by state and local governments. Bush's fault as well I suppose.

I find it a bit hard to believe any man that will never go under oath or allow his cabinet to go under oath during an investigation.

Since the constitution allows it, I don't. Especially when this whole US attorney thing is political revenge at its purest.

 

[Playboypenguin]

If the evidence is indisputable then it shouldn't be hard to post. Off the top of my head, I don't ever recall Bush making any kind of statement that said Iraq was involved in 9/11. He did talk about al quaeda being in Iraq, which is correct. Also, regarding the levies in NO, Bush's statement was regarding the breaching of these levies. Bush acknowledged the topping of the levies. There are completely different. Water running over your bathtub is far different than water collapsing the side of your tub. None of the computer simulations anticipated a breach.

Did you not bother to read the previous post. Bush was clearly given reports that stated a catagory four storm would BREACH or top the levies. As for Saddam and Iraq. Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official which Bush later backed up. They then later went on record as saying there was no connection and Bush even denied he ever said there was a connection.

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002)

"(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s" - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/06/16/bush_backs_cheney_on_assertion_linking_hussein_al_qaeda/

Since the constitution allows it, I don't. Especially when this whole US attorney thing is political revenge at its purest.

I guess the Iraq and 9/11 investigation were also political revenge then.

 

[STAGE 2]

Bush was clearly given reports that stated a catagory four storm would BREACH or top the levies.

Ummm... no. Bush was told a category 4 storm may top the levies by 3 to 4 feet. Nothing was said about a breach. These are 2 different things.

Either way, the feds were on the horn at least 72 hours before the storm hit saying people should leave no matter what. People who stayed are at fault. As former military, you should know that even the most out of shape person can hump it quite a long way with 72 hours.

As for Saddam and Iraq. Cheney said it was "pretty well confirmed" that attack mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official which Bush later backed up. They then later went on record as saying there was no connection and Bush even denied he ever said there was a connection.

"The regime has longstanding and continuing ties to terrorist groups, and there are Al Qaida terrorists inside Iraq." - George W. Bush Delivers Weekly Radio Address, White House (9/28/2002

"This is a man who has got connections with Al Qaida." - Remarks by the President in Texas Welcome, White House (11/4/2002)

"(Since September 11) We learned more and more that there was a relationship between Iraq and al-Qaeda that stretched back through most of the decade of the '90s" - Dick Cheney, Meet the Press, NBC (9/14/2003)

Well, there were al quaeda terrorists inside Iraq. This is a proven fact. Saddam does have longstanding ties with terrorist groups. This is also a proven fact. Saddam did send delegations to meet with various al quaeda operatives. This too is a fact. Everything from those quotes is true.

However NOTHING you posted is a statement that Iraq was involved with 9/11. They suggest that iraq was involved with al quaeda, but thats about it. If some weak minded folks want to make a leap of logic, thats their problem, but nothing in these statements says that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

 

[Playboypenguin]

Once again you are either not reading or not understanding.
The FEMA reports and the studies done, that were reported in the Times-Picayune and included in presidential briefings, all stated that the levies would "be topped or BROKEN." So tell me again how noone forsaw the levies breaking.

And, the comments linking Saddam to Al-Qaeda, where not only false but they were in response to questions about Al-Qeadas attacks on 9/11 and their continued threat. The comments were clearly intended to make a conection between Saddam and attacks on this country. Then add on the part that Bush later said that they never made a connection between Al-Qeada and Saddam.

 

[applesanity]

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the idea of building a city below sea level, in a hurricane-prone region of the world, never quite settled with me.

Not to mention the fact that the port city of New Orleans is so crazy corrupt that their original wealth from oil refining moved to Houston. That's right - Houston actually DUG A CANAL to the Gulf, in order to move oil rigs to their place.

I thought we were talking about Libby.

 

[Limeyfellow]

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but the idea of building a city below sea level, in a hurricane-prone region of the world, never quite settled with me.

Originally New Orleans was built all above the waterline. Its relatively recently in the city's history that part of it is below city. The problem is the Mississippi river is the most important waterway in the US and its vital for economics to have a city controlling and organising the trade at the river mouth, hence why they built there. The US would really loose alot without that big docks and ports and surrounding bureaucracy missing.

 

[STAGE 2]

Once again you are either not reading or not understanding.
The FEMA reports and the studies done, that were reported in the Times-Picayune and included in presidential briefings, all stated that the levies would "be topped or BROKEN." So tell me again how noone forsaw the levies breaking.

And, the comments linking Saddam to Al-Qaeda, where not only false but they were in response to questions about Al-Qeadas attacks on 9/11 and their continued threat. The comments were clearly intended to make a conection between Saddam and attacks on this country. Then add on the part that Bush later said that they never made a connection between Al-Qeada and Saddam.

I can't really argue with you beyond this. If you're just going to deny stuff that did happen then this is really pointless. Al qaeda was in Iraq and iraqi officials did meet with al quaeda. None of these statements state that Iraq had anything to do with 9/11. They each say that Iraq has relations with the people that committed 9/11, and thats a dangerous thing.

 

[jimpeel]

I will post the proof that Bush DID NOT LIE in this post for all to see.

There are tons of link on the net that will take you straight to the transcripts and even videos of every instance I posted. it seems to me you just don't want to know the truth.

I'm not greedy. Just give me one pound, one ounce, one gram of those "tons". You haven't done it because you are acting as an agent provocateur on this board.

When you said the Butler report and other intel said '"Saddam has sought" I went and looked it up myself. After being unable to find it I came to you and asked where. I then said if you can show it to me I would be willing to adjust my position.

I hate to say this but you MUST be lying. I have posted the link to the Report from the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence numerous time AND HAVE JUST DONE SO ONCE AGAIN.

I posted the quote from the report which states "On September 24, 2002 the British Government published a White Paper on Iraq's WMD stating, "there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium from Africa." AND HAVE JUST DONE SO ONCE AGAIN.

I posted the link to the page where the above was written AND HAVE JUST DONE SO ONCE AGAIN.

Simply click on THIS LINK and scroll down to #499 which reads:

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.

Also note this:

500. We also note that, because the intelligence evidence was inconclusive, neither the Government’s dossier nor the Prime Minister went on to say that a deal between the Governments of Iraq and Niger for the supply of uranium had been signed, or uranium shipped.

This is the part where you scream "AHA! I got you Peel!" at your computer screen; but after you finish wiping the spittle from the screen, read this:

501. We have been told that it was not until early 2003 that the British Government became aware that the US (and other states) had received from a journalistic source a number of documents alleged to cover the Iraqi procurement of uranium from Niger. Those documents were passed to the IAEA, which in its update report to the United Nations Security Council in March 2003 determined that the papers were forgeries:

Ah, you are rubbing you hands together like a Boy Scout trying to light a campfire on that one! But read on.

The investigation was centred on documents provided by a number of States that pointed to an agreement between Niger and Iraq for the sale of uranium to Iraq between 1999 and 2001. The IAEA has discussed these reports with the Governments of Iraq and Niger,both of which have denied that any such activity took place. For its part,Iraq has provided the IAEA with a comprehensive explanation of its relations with Niger,and has described a visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries,including Niger, in February 1999,which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports. The IAEA was able to review correspondence coming from various bodies of the Government of Niger,and to compare the form, format, contents and signatures of that correspondence with those of the alleged procurement-related documentation. Based on thorough analysis,the IAEA has concluded,with the concurrence of outside experts,that these documents,which formed the basis for the reports of recent uranium transactions between Iraq and Niger,are in fact not authentic. We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations are unfounded.
[IAEA GOV/INF/2003/10 Annex of 7 March 2003]

The suspense grows ... nuh nuh nuh nuh nuuuuuuh. nuh nuh nuh nuh nuuuuuuuuuuuuh ...

502. We have asked the IAEA what were their grounds for concluding that the visit paid by an Iraqi official to Africa was not for the purpose of acquiring uranium. The IAEA said:

. . . the Director General explained in his report dated 7 March 2004 [sic] to the UN Security Council that Iraq ”described the visit by an Iraqi official to a number of African countries,including Niger, in February 1999,which Iraq thought might have given rise to the reports”. On a number of occasions in early 2003, including in a letter dated 1 February 2003,the IAEA requested Iraq to provide details of all meetings held between Iraqi officials and officials from Niger around the year 2000. The Director of Iraq’s National Monitoring Directorate responded in a letter of 7 February 2003 to the Director of the IAEA’s Iraq Nuclear Verification Office. (It should be noted that at the time of Iraq’s response Iraq had not been provided by the IAEA with any details contained in documents alleging the existence of a uranium contract.)

The Iraqi response referred to above explained that,on 8 February 1999, Mr. Wissam Al Zahawie,Iraq’s then Ambassador to the Holy See,as part of a trip to four African countries,visited Niger as an envoy of the then President of Iraq to Mr. Ibrahim Bare, the then President of Niger,in order to deliver an official invitation for a visit to Iraq, planned for 20 to 30 April 1999. (N.B. Mr. Bare passed away on 9 April 1999.) According to the Iraqi information,no such presidential visit from Niger to Iraq took place before 2003.

The Iraqi authorities provided the IAEA with excerpts from Mr. Al Zahawie’s travel report to Niger. These excerpts support the above explanation by the Ambassador regarding the purpose of his visit to Niger and do not contain any references to discussions about uranium supply from Niger.

In order to further clarify the matter,the IAEA interviewed Mr. Al Zahawie on 12 February 2003. The information provided by the Ambassador about details about his 1999 trip to Africa also supported the information obtained previously by the 124 Agency on this visit. The demeanour of the Ambassador and the general tone of the interview did not suggest that he was under particular pressure to hide or fabricate information.

Notwithstanding the information summarized above,and in view of the fact that the IAEA so far has not obtained any other related information than the forged documents,the IAEA is not in the position to demonstrate that Iraq never sought to import uranium in the past. This is the reason why the IAEA only concluded that it had ”no indication that Iraq attempted to import uranium since 1990” but it would ”follow up any additional evidence,if it emerges,relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials”. So far no such additional information has been obtained by the Agency.

Oh, oh ...

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.[/QUOTE]


And he scoooooores!!!