Yellowcake, yellowcake, Bush's plan ...

[Evil_Captor]

I heard a report on NPR yesterday that the head of the Italian Secret Service had been let go because he was a little TOO cooperative with the US in a case of extraordinary rendition, in which suspected terrorists are essentially kidnapped by US agents and hauled off to some remote location to be interrogated by torture. The happened on Italian soil, so it was embarrassing and I guess that’s why they canned him.

Now, the reason this interested me beside the obvious matter of a Bush Admin fellow traveler getting a smackdown was because I remembered who was behind the origin of the forged documents involved in the Nigerian yellowcake incident. It was … get this … the Italian secret service!

I have wondered why the Italian secret service was running around obtaining/creating forged documents about Iraq attempting to by Nigerian yellowcake, and now I think I have a reasonable guess … a relationship between US intelligence and Italian intelligence that is so cozy that it would allow the US to conduct illegal kidnappings on Italian soil SURELY would also encompass the creation of a few seriously faked documents.

And of course, there’s that suspicious 2002 meeting between top Bush aide Stephen Hadley and the same Italian security chief. Hadley said they never discussed uranium, and we should all believe him. Evcn though Hadley is the same guy who obligingly resigned in disgrace because he supposedlysomehow forgot to remove Bush’s claims about Iraq trying to by uranium in Niger from the State of the Union address – despite having had two warnings from the CIA about it.

What a big silly he was!

In short, I think this all this coziness and all these FASCINATING Hadleyan conicidences merit some serious Congressional inquiries. It may not be as hard to nail the bastids for totally cooking up their excuses for invading Iraq as we might think. We need to make some bastards testify under oath and see if we can take their stories apart and put them in jail if they won’t reveal who made them do the things they’re lying about.

[elucidator]

Won’t work. James Baker will find Hadley’s brother in Sicily…

[treis]

What’s the debate?

[elucidator]

Wait a sec! “Yellowcake, yellowcake, Baker’s man…” Its the Duh Vinci code!

[Evil_Captor]

@treis

What’s the debate?

I figured a few of the usual suspects would come along and say, “But you haven’t proven that the Bush admin. was behind the forged yellowcake documents beyond any shadow of a doubt, therefore, it would be improper to investigate the possibility that it occurred!”

[Zoe]

elucidator: “Yellowcake, yellowcake, Baker’s man…”

“Rove 'em up and Rove 'em up and pitch 'em in the pen!”

[John_Mace]

@Evil Captor

I figured a few of the usual suspects would come along and say, “But you haven’t proven that the Bush admin. was behind the forged yellowcake documents beyond any shadow of a doubt, therefore, it would be improper to investigate the possibility that it occurred!”

I guess you figured wrong. You might want to take that into account the next time you “figure” something. I don’t know that I’ve seen even the most ardent Bush supporter around here say you shouldn’t investigate something until you’ve already proven that something. If you had, what would be the purpose of the investigation?

[XT]

@Evil Captor

In short, I think this all this coziness and all these FASCINATING Hadleyan conicidences merit some serious Congressional inquiries. It may not be as hard to nail the bastids for totally cooking up their excuses for invading Iraq as we might think. We need to make some bastards testify under oath and see if we can take their stories apart and put them in jail if they won’t reveal who made them do the things they’re lying about.

Seems pretty fanciful to me, but as the Dems now are in control, I suppose they can investigate whatever they like. One thing…is there any indication they ARE looking to investigate this? Or is this some fantasy you are spinning?

@Evil Captor

I figured a few of the usual suspects would come along and say, “But you haven’t proven that the Bush admin. was behind the forged yellowcake documents beyond any shadow of a doubt, therefore, it would be improper to investigate the possibility that it occurred!”

Hows that workin out for you?
It doesn’t really touch on the central question here, but here is Factcheck.org’s take on the whole yellowcake thingy if anyone is interested.

Summary

The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

* A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
* A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
* Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger . 
* Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.

None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that’s not the same as lying.

Maybe they haven’t twigged to the notorious Italian connection yet.

-XT

[Evil_Captor]

@John Mace

I guess you figured wrong. You might want to take that into account the next time you “figure” something. I don’t know that I’ve seen even the most ardent Bush supporter around here say you shouldn’t investigate something until you’ve already proven that something. If you had, what would be the purpose of the investigation?

C’mon, Bricker to name one opposes any speculation not legally admissible in court. Well, I may be exagerrating there. But not much.

[ElvisL1ves]

@xtisme

Seems pretty fanciful to me, but as the Dems now are in control, I suppose they can investigate whatever they like. One thing…is there any indication they ARE looking to investigate this? Or is this some fantasy you are spinning?

WTF? Why would you doubt it? Senator Outlines Plans For Intelligence Panel

Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.) spelled out his agenda for the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday, promising not only to look back at issues such as the surveillance of overseas phone calls, CIA detention activities and the use of prewar Iraq intelligence but also to look ahead at emerging global terrorist threats. Rockefeller will become chairman of the committee in January.
…
Partisan disagreements have kept the panel from concluding the second phase of its review of prewar Iraq intelligence. The report includes a contentious section dealing with how information was used in public speeches to build support for the invasion. Rockefeller called that assessment one of “our core oversight responsibilities.” He said it can be taken up “without raking over the old coals again.”

Brownback was, of course, just about to get around to it, but darn the luck, that election got in the way.

On the House side, the chairmanship of the Intelligence Committee has not yet been settled, so the new one’s agenda is not yet public.
It’s true that the Usuals have been very quiet in the last couple of weeks. It’s no mystery why, of course. Shodan is another who has always insisted in the past on having the evidence before holding the investigation, as long as the subject is a Republican.

[John_Mace]

@Evil Captor

C’mon, Bricker to name one opposes any speculation not legally admissible in court. Well, I may be exagerrating there. But not much.

Well, that would be an appropriate response to something like this, from your OP:

We need to make some bastards testify under oath and see if we can take their stories apart and put them in jail if they won’t reveal who made them do the things they’re lying about.

Empahsis added.

But in the post I quoted you were talking about what standards some of the “usual supsects” have for initiating an investigation, not concluding one.

What I’m suggesting is that you are painting a strawman version of what your political opponents’ position is wrt investigations. And as **XT **pointed out, the Dems have that power now, so it’s their perogative to decide what to do. If they don’t (and I doubt very strongly that they will), will that be enough for you to rethink your thesis?

[elucidator]

Probably not, since the “16 words” are a bit far down the list of crimes and misdemeanors. As well, there is the difficulty with subpoena serving to Italian intelligence. But mostly, it just may not rise to the top, shit floats, after all.

Son of Sam was busted because of a parking infraction. After his conviction on murder charges, they most likely dropped the parking ticket.

[XT]

@ElvisL1ves

WTF? Why would you doubt it? Senator Outlines Plans For Intelligence Panel

Apologies…I’m so hung over today you wouldn’t believe it. Could you quote the part in your cite that is specific to your OP…i.e. the part dealing with the Dems investigating this specific issue? I looked it over, to be sure, but my eyes are obviously playing tricks on me as I can’t seem to see what you obviously are saying is there.

@ElvisL1ves

It’s true that the Usuals have been very quiet in the last couple of weeks. It’s no mystery why, of course. Shodan is another who has always insisted in the past on having the evidence before holding the investigation, as long as the subject is a Republican.

Rather silly of you to say what you did…IMHO, FWIW. Next time, why not just wait UNTIL one of the ‘Usuals’ attacks something, and THEN reply…instead of trying to pre-empt them.

@elucidator

Probably not, since the “16 words” are a bit far down the list of crimes and misdemeanors. As well, there is the difficulty with subpoena serving to Italian intelligence. But mostly, it just may not rise to the top, shit floats, after all.

Couldn’t agree more old boy. IF they are going to get Bush et al, and lock them away in small cells for long periods of time, it won’t be over THIS particular issue…well, unless the OP is right ( :dubious: ) and the US actually manufactured the whole thing via the Italian Connection™.

-XT

[elucidator]

What is this “hangover” of which you speak? This is not the way of my people.

[Evil_Captor]

@xtisme

Seems pretty fanciful to me, but as the Dems now are in control, I suppose they can investigate whatever they like. One thing…is there any indication they ARE looking to investigate this? Or is this some fantasy you are spinning?

Hows that workin out for you?

fun so far.
It doesn’t really touch on the central question here, but here is Factcheck.org’s take on the whole yellowcake thingy if anyone is interested.
[/quote]

Boy, that’s seriously unimpressive work by Factcheck.org. See, if you’ll read it you’ll notice that there’s not a whole lot of definitive evidence there. Yeah, the Iraqis did visit Niger to talk about trade, but all we have is the notion of one of the Niger(ians) that uranium might have been involved. No docs. No admission that uranium was discussed, in fact, denials all around. Factcheck.org says that this was enough for intelligence experts to conclude that Iraq was shopping for yellowcake in Niger, and it might be if, say, there were nothing else that Niger might possess that the Iraqis under Saddam might conceivably want. But there was no info to that effect in Factcheck.org’s summary.

So we are left with a whole hell of a lot of supposing and iffing. Not exactly substantive enough to build a case for war. Why if I were to try to build a debate here on the Dope on such shaky ground, I’d be laughed off the message board. Much less a case for war.

Didn’t mention at all that Hadley is known to have received two letters and a phone call from the CIA expressing doubt about the fake docs and yet still somehow forgot to dump those words about the Iraqis. Factcheck seems to think that mess of pottage it cited was enough to make a statement like that in the SOTU address. I’m disappointed in them. Thought they was smart.

Maybe they haven’t twigged to the notorious Italian connection yet.

-XT

They don’t appear to have done a hell of a lot of twigging to anything in that article.

[ElvisL1ves]

@xtisme

Could you quote the part in your cite that is specific to your OP…i.e. the part dealing with the Dems investigating this specific issue?

You think there’s a real chance it won’t come up?

Rather silly of you to say what you did…IMHO, FWIW. Next time, why not just wait UNTIL one of the ‘Usuals’ attacks something, and THEN reply…instead of trying to pre-empt them.

They’ve done it so many times in the past that it’s silly to pretend otherwise.

Now go take care of that hangover and your posts will doubtless be more reality-connected.

[John_Mace]

@ElvisL1ves

You think there’s a real chance it won’t come up?

Not only do I think there’s little chance, I’m willing to bet. Are you?

[XT]

@ElvisL1ves

So we are left with a whole hell of a lot of supposing and iffing. Not exactly substantive enough to build a case for war. Why if I were to try to build a debate here on the Dope on such shaky ground, I’d be laughed off the message board. Much less a case for war.

lol…did I say it was good enough to build a case for war on? Please tell me where I said that…you can even pour over my old quotes from the time period in question if you like when I quasi-supported the case for war in Iraq. Good luck with that!
My head is about to split, but this is too good to pass up!

@ElvisL1ves

You think there’s a real chance it won’t come up?

@ElvisL1ves

Now go take care of that hangover and your posts will doubtless be more reality-connected.

Maybe its the single malt coursing through my blood stream, but the irony of these two statements in the same post is worth the pain of writing this…and the laughter it provoked. I will take your (unusually) good advice though and take a nice hot bath and hope that helps the hangover.

-XT

[Evil_Captor]

@John Mace

Well, that would be an appropriate response to something like this, from your OP:
Empahsis added.

But in the post I quoted you were talking about what standards some of the “usual supsects” have for initiating an investigation, not concluding one.

What I’m suggesting is that you are painting a strawman version of what your political opponents’ position is wrt investigations. And as **XT **pointed out, the Dems have that power now, so it’s their perogative to decide what to do. If they don’t (and I doubt very strongly that they will), will that be enough for you to rethink your thesis?

What a short memory you have. Check out some of the posts in this thread, starting with this one. Where the Bush admin is concerned, you guys have some VERY stringent standards.

The conservatives (and a lot of moderates) were wrong about SO MANY THINGS relating to the Bush admin in the last six years, you’d think you’d be a little more suspicious of the guy and his minions by now.

And here’s a classic “must have legal proof before making an assertion on a message board” moment from Bricker.

[ElvisL1ves]

@John Mace

Not only do I think there’s little chance, I’m willing to bet. Are you?

I am no more interested in enabling anyone else’s addictive behaviors than I am in indulging their fantasies. Take it elsewhere, please.

And while you’re there, do remind yourself about all the very public discussion of the Niger forgeries, even before Bush’s invasion, and the Italian connection itself that Amb. Wilson revealed. We even discussed it at some length in this very forum. Does your memory run that far back, or are your filters as strong as your comments to EC suggest?