I'm saying his report wasn't thorough.For the sake of precision, the State of the Union never said anything about yellow cake from Niger. Bush spoke of Iraq attempting to get "uranium from Africa". He backed up the claim by citing British intel which the Brits STILL maintain is accurate. No, it wasn't. Wilson was only able to investigate the leads our people gave him. He wouldn't have been in any position to debunk British intel.
He wasn't the only one to investigate. Do a search for Carlton Fulford.
He backed up the claim by citing British intel which the Brits STILL maintain is accurate.
The white house has admitted that in light of wilson's trip and the forged documents, the claim did not stand up to the facts.
Tenet also points out that the intelligence they are talking about is not this 'mystery' intel referred to by certain british politicians (not 'the british' as you claim).
It is clear that the US was going on only the intel we know about. To help you understand:
Quote:
According to a testimony given by Alan Foley, a senior CIA official, to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on July 17, the Africa-uranium claim was included in President Bush?s January 28 State of the Union address as a result of pressure from Robert Joseph, director for nonproliferation at the National Security Council (NSC). Foley, pressed by the Democrats on the committee, said that Robert Joseph had suggested including the controversial claim during a telephone conversation that had happened just one or two days before the speech. [Washington Post, 7/17/03; New York Times, 7/17/03] When Foley warned that the allegation had little evidence to support it, Mr. Joseph instead requested that the speech include a remark saying that the British had learned that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa, leaving out the bit about Niger and the exact quantity of uranium that was allegedly sought. [New York Times, 7/17/03; Washington Post, 7/27/03] Joseph said he could not recall the discussion and White House communications director Dan Bartlett referred to Foley?s version of events as a ?conspiracy theory?. [Washington Post, 7/27/03]
from CCR
Furthermore, no one believes the couple of british officials (not 'the british')
Quote:
Statements.
(1) On July 14, 2003, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Britain?s evidence was not based on the forged documents, contending that it had come from another country. He also claimed that U.S. intelligence had not yet seen it. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(2) In a late July 2003 statement, Britain?s Foreign office said that it had intelligence ?from more than one source.? [BBC, 7/30/03]
(D) Evidence suggesting that such evidence did not exist
(1) Reports.
(a) Reuters reported in late March 2003: ?The IAEA asked the U.S. and Britain if they had any other evidence backing the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium. The answer was no.? [Reuters, 3/26/03]
(b) The Washington Post reported, ?An informed U.N. official said the United States and Britain were repeatedly asked for all information they had to support the charge. Neither government, the official said, ?ever indicated that they had any information on any other country?.? [Washington Post, 3/22/03]
(c) When the IAEA asked Britain to supply evidence to back its claims, Blair?s government refused, arguing that it had come from a third country which had requested anonymity. But according to the international legislation which had sent the agency?s inspectors to investigate Iraq's nuclear capabilities, all signatory countries were required to cooperate with the IAEA. And as critics have noted, there was ?no exemption for countries that claim evidence was provided by a third party?. [Independent, 7/17/03]
(2) Statements
(a) Melissa Fleming, spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
(i) In mid-July 2003, she told Reuters that the IAEA suspected that London?s assertions had been entirely based on the alleged transaction referred to in the forged documents. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(b) Unnamed Western diplomat.
(i) Reuters reported: ?A Western diplomat close to the IAEA said the agency had the impression the evidence that Britain said was genuine was ultimately referring to the same alleged transaction described in a series of fake documents.? The news agency quoted the diplomat explaining, ?I understand that it concerned the same group of documents and the same transaction.? [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(c) Unnamed Western diplomat
(i) ?Despite requests, the British Government has provided no such evidence. Senior officials at the agency think it is involved in an information black-out.? [Independent, 7/17/03]
While what you posted is correct, it's interesting that you did not provide a citation. What's further interesting is that you apparently just got it off of findlaw rather than go directly to the real source and call it by it's name: the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That would not only have been the clear and proper way to do it (which a real professor should do out of habit), but it is also the easy way.
Actually, I pulled it straight off of the Government Printing Offices Access Site and copied it directly for you. And it had a citation.. did you look at the bottom of what I posted?
Furthermore, the link you posted goes to the Federation of American Scientists? Is this somehow a more reliable source than the Government Printing Office?
As for the name, I called it what it is US Code Title 50: War and National Defense, Chapter 15 (National Security), Subchapter 4 (Protection of Certain National Security Information) Section 421.
See, since I am a "real professor" I actually understand how these things work. Thanks for pointing out that I am right though.
If you'd like some help, you can find it directly for yourself at the ACTUAL homepage for the US CODE not at some FEderation of American Scientists (which by the way you included the wrong link anyway).
See, since I am a "real professor" I actually understand how these things work.
Then why would you write such an unbearably stupid post?
And guess what, I caught you blatantly lying. see bottom
Quote:
Actually, I pulled it straight off of the Government Printing Offices Access Site and copied it directly for you. And it had a citation.. did you look at the bottom of what I posted?
I see your citation, but even I don't see how that helps me find it. I go to GPO Access and searching with that yields a bunch of garbage. And apparently I need to spell everything out for you and be more concise since you are so incapable of understanding the point of my post. Change 'citation' to 'clear citation,' which is what you should have inferred from the post.
But anyway, you didn't pull it off of the GPO Access site.
Quote:
Furthermore, the link you posted goes to the Federation of American Scientists? Is this somehow a more reliable source than the Government Printing Office?
Furthermore, WTF are you talking about?
Quote:
As for the name, I called it what it is US Code Title 50: War and National Defense, Chapter 15 (National Security), Subchapter 4 (Protection of Certain National Security Information) Section 421.
True, but as you pointed out, this is your citation: July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982, Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122. Funny, because my understanding is that the proper way to cite it would be "50 USC 421, et seq." But you wouldn't know that, would you?
But the name used to refer to it is "Intelligence Identities Protection Act." (with or without the 82) That is the correct way to refer to it and it is the only one that returns the correct section when searching the US Code on the GPO site. In fact, it says within the section itself that this is the title.
Quote:
If you'd like some help, you can find it directly for yourself at the ACTUAL homepage for the US CODE not at some FEderation of American Scientists (which by the way you included the wrong link anyway).
Man, you are really out there.
First off, what part of the link is incorrect? That's what I thought.
Secondly, WTF? Seriously. Do you really, honestly think that you are such a big shot that you know where the GPO access website is? Good for you. You get a cookie. I work in a government depository, genius. Even at your own dick measuring game you lose. What idiot school is wasting money on you again?
And now for how you lied to me.
You did not get what you quoted off of the GPO access site. You want to know how I know? Because your copy was from before the 1999 ammendment.
The latest news has Republican Sen. Arlen Specter saying "recusal is something Ashcroft ought to consider." (CNN) I think that's something when you have a moderate Republican suggesting that Ashcroft's previous ties to Rove may compromise the investigation. It's not just Democrats anymore. I hope Olympia Snow and Voinovich come forward soon so we have a stronger collective of moderate voices.
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL NOW.
Moderate Republicans, come forth and support your fellow moderates!
www.fas.org is a link to the Federation of American Scientists.
just go there... that's what it links to! and the link you listed goes to the 1947 National Security Act
as for the amendments, the only difference is that instead of listing the amounts of the fines, they changed it to indicate that you shall be fined under title 18. sorry, I stand corrected.
But at any rate, who cares, I posted the law someone asked for. Do you really get off making a fool of yourself trying to correct someone and then linking to the Federation of American Scientists website as if it's some sort of authoritative site.
Hypothetical question: had a similar scandal occurred under Bill Clinton's watch...in what ways (if any) would the reaction and fall-out have been any different?
What the hell are you talking about? Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Let's see. James Wilson makes a report and you act as though that's the last word, as though he had full and complete knowledge. He spent 10 days there. Is it THAT surprising to you that there are people who weren't impressed with what he brought back? Who's being obtuse? According to the CIA press release, he didn't contradict anything. What Wilson's report did was fail to confirm the allegations. It couldn't deny them. THOSE are the FACTS. Work from there. Maybe the allegations couldn't be confirmed because they weren't true or maybe because there's some evidence that hasn't been uncovered. The Brits STILL haven't budged from their story, though.
The white house has admitted that in light of wilson's trip and the forged documents, the claim did not stand up to the facts...
No, they said the claim shouldn't have been in the speech. There's a difference.
Quote:
It is clear that the US was going on only the intel we know about.
This is what Bush said. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It's clear he was basing the claim on British intel.
Let's see. James Wilson makes a report and you act as though that's the last word, as though he had full and complete knowledge. He spent 10 days there. Is it THAT surprising to you that there are people who weren't impressed with what he brought back? Who's being obtuse? According to the CIA press release, he didn't contradict anything. What Wilson's report did was fail to confirm the allegations. It couldn't deny them. THOSE are the FACTS. Work from there. Maybe the allegations couldn't be confirmed because they weren't true or maybe because there's some evidence that hasn't been uncovered. The Brits STILL haven't budged from their story, though.
Why wouldn't I treat what Joseph Wilson found as if it's the last word? He was sent by the CIA to investigate whether Niger sold "yellowcake uranium" to Iraq. He said no, it was virtually impossible. And the CIA disagreed based on foreign government officials knowing that their words will be heard by the US? That's it? That's their entire basis for rejecting the Wilson report? If you looked at what Wilson actually found, you too would treat his report as fact. Tenet's comments do very little to discredit his findings. In fact- Wilson was right all along. Do you seriously think that Niger sold "yellowcake uranium" to Iraq? I mean that's something that has been discredited for a while now!
Tenet says very clearly that the "report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad." That's really not what Wilson was sent to Niger for given that it's just one country. Perhaps that's why Bush's 16 words included "Africa" and not "Niger?"
I'm still wondering what the voracity of the report has to do with that a Senior Admin. Official outing a CIA operative in what was not only a felonious act, but an act that endangered the lives of CIA agents, networks, and the United States of America, purely for political revenge.
And look what you making an ass out of yourself again. Take a good hard look at that page and then read below.
Quote:
www.fas.org is a link to the Federation of American Scientists.
Really? THanks for letting me know. Funny that I didn't know about that even though I've been getting aftergood's secrecy news for the past few years.* Do you even know who aftergood is? No. So get a clue.
*since you obviously lack the capability to discern it on your own, this is called sarcasm.
Quote:
just go there... that's what it links to! and the link you listed goes to the 1947 National Security Act
That's 50 USC 421!!!! That's it, genius! Man. You have real problems.
Quote:
as for the amendments, the only difference is that instead of listing the amounts of the fines, they changed it to indicate that you shall be fined under title 18. sorry, I stand corrected.
No!
You said "Actually, I pulled it straight off of the Government Printing Offices Access Site and copied it directly for you" which was a flat out lie. You then proceeded to use your lie to try to ridicule me.
Quote:
But at any rate, who cares, I posted the law someone asked for.
It matters because you parade around here and lie that you are a law professor. You clearly NOT a law professor (as you claim to be) and know little or nothing about law (so little you don't even know how to correctly cite US Code). You also consistently have no clue what you are talking about and then lie when called on it.
Quote:
Federation of American Scientists website as if it's some sort of authoritative site.
Did they alter the code? NO! So how does this matter at all? That's right it doesn't.
And do you even know what FAS is? Apparently not. Just like you don't know anything about law. Maybe you should find out about both rather than compulsively lying on appleinsider.
This is what Bush said. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It's clear he was basing the claim on British intel.
Shawn, keyboard, bunge, do you guys have any ideas as to what's up with these two? This one, zaphod, keeps on asking about things that have been answered, only he doesn't know it because he refuses to read anything.
Is this what the 'conservative' side is now reduced to? It's really kind of sad to watch, actually.
Comments
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I'm saying his report wasn't thorough.For the sake of precision, the State of the Union never said anything about yellow cake from Niger. Bush spoke of Iraq attempting to get "uranium from Africa". He backed up the claim by citing British intel which the Brits STILL maintain is accurate. No, it wasn't. Wilson was only able to investigate the leads our people gave him. He wouldn't have been in any position to debunk British intel.
He wasn't the only one to investigate. Do a search for Carlton Fulford.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
He backed up the claim by citing British intel which the Brits STILL maintain is accurate.
The white house has admitted that in light of wilson's trip and the forged documents, the claim did not stand up to the facts.
Tenet also points out that the intelligence they are talking about is not this 'mystery' intel referred to by certain british politicians (not 'the british' as you claim).
It is clear that the US was going on only the intel we know about. To help you understand:
According to a testimony given by Alan Foley, a senior CIA official, to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence on July 17, the Africa-uranium claim was included in President Bush?s January 28 State of the Union address as a result of pressure from Robert Joseph, director for nonproliferation at the National Security Council (NSC). Foley, pressed by the Democrats on the committee, said that Robert Joseph had suggested including the controversial claim during a telephone conversation that had happened just one or two days before the speech. [Washington Post, 7/17/03; New York Times, 7/17/03] When Foley warned that the allegation had little evidence to support it, Mr. Joseph instead requested that the speech include a remark saying that the British had learned that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa, leaving out the bit about Niger and the exact quantity of uranium that was allegedly sought. [New York Times, 7/17/03; Washington Post, 7/27/03] Joseph said he could not recall the discussion and White House communications director Dan Bartlett referred to Foley?s version of events as a ?conspiracy theory?. [Washington Post, 7/27/03]
from CCR
Furthermore, no one believes the couple of british officials (not 'the british')
Statements.
(1) On July 14, 2003, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said Britain?s evidence was not based on the forged documents, contending that it had come from another country. He also claimed that U.S. intelligence had not yet seen it. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(2) In a late July 2003 statement, Britain?s Foreign office said that it had intelligence ?from more than one source.? [BBC, 7/30/03]
(D) Evidence suggesting that such evidence did not exist
(1) Reports.
(a) Reuters reported in late March 2003: ?The IAEA asked the U.S. and Britain if they had any other evidence backing the claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium. The answer was no.? [Reuters, 3/26/03]
(b) The Washington Post reported, ?An informed U.N. official said the United States and Britain were repeatedly asked for all information they had to support the charge. Neither government, the official said, ?ever indicated that they had any information on any other country?.? [Washington Post, 3/22/03]
(c) When the IAEA asked Britain to supply evidence to back its claims, Blair?s government refused, arguing that it had come from a third country which had requested anonymity. But according to the international legislation which had sent the agency?s inspectors to investigate Iraq's nuclear capabilities, all signatory countries were required to cooperate with the IAEA. And as critics have noted, there was ?no exemption for countries that claim evidence was provided by a third party?. [Independent, 7/17/03]
(2) Statements
(a) Melissa Fleming, spokesperson for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
(i) In mid-July 2003, she told Reuters that the IAEA suspected that London?s assertions had been entirely based on the alleged transaction referred to in the forged documents. [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(b) Unnamed Western diplomat.
(i) Reuters reported: ?A Western diplomat close to the IAEA said the agency had the impression the evidence that Britain said was genuine was ultimately referring to the same alleged transaction described in a series of fake documents.? The news agency quoted the diplomat explaining, ?I understand that it concerned the same group of documents and the same transaction.? [Reuters, 7/14/03]
(c) Unnamed Western diplomat
(i) ?Despite requests, the British Government has provided no such evidence. Senior officials at the agency think it is involved in an information black-out.? [Independent, 7/17/03]
http://www.msnbc.com/news/974912.asp?0cv=CA01
An operative was outed... the law was broken. It's just a matter of finding the person who leaked the info.
People are looking at Scooter... Cheney's chief of staff.
Take away from this whole mess:
A Senior Admin Official spilled, and someone could have been killed.
While what you posted is correct, it's interesting that you did not provide a citation. What's further interesting is that you apparently just got it off of findlaw rather than go directly to the real source and call it by it's name: the Intelligence Identities Protection Act. That would not only have been the clear and proper way to do it (which a real professor should do out of habit), but it is also the easy way.
Actually, I pulled it straight off of the Government Printing Offices Access Site and copied it directly for you. And it had a citation.. did you look at the bottom of what I posted?
Furthermore, the link you posted goes to the Federation of American Scientists? Is this somehow a more reliable source than the Government Printing Office?
As for the name, I called it what it is US Code Title 50: War and National Defense, Chapter 15 (National Security), Subchapter 4 (Protection of Certain National Security Information) Section 421.
See, since I am a "real professor" I actually understand how these things work. Thanks for pointing out that I am right though.
If you'd like some help, you can find it directly for yourself at the ACTUAL homepage for the US CODE not at some FEderation of American Scientists (which by the way you included the wrong link anyway).
Originally posted by OBJRA10
See, since I am a "real professor" I actually understand how these things work.
Then why would you write such an unbearably stupid post?
And guess what, I caught you blatantly lying. see bottom
Actually, I pulled it straight off of the Government Printing Offices Access Site and copied it directly for you. And it had a citation.. did you look at the bottom of what I posted?
I see your citation, but even I don't see how that helps me find it. I go to GPO Access and searching with that yields a bunch of garbage. And apparently I need to spell everything out for you and be more concise since you are so incapable of understanding the point of my post. Change 'citation' to 'clear citation,' which is what you should have inferred from the post.
But anyway, you didn't pull it off of the GPO Access site.
Furthermore, the link you posted goes to the Federation of American Scientists? Is this somehow a more reliable source than the Government Printing Office?
Furthermore, WTF are you talking about?
As for the name, I called it what it is US Code Title 50: War and National Defense, Chapter 15 (National Security), Subchapter 4 (Protection of Certain National Security Information) Section 421.
True, but as you pointed out, this is your citation: July 26, 1947, ch. 343, title VI, Sec. 601, as added June 23, 1982, Pub. L. 97-200, Sec. 2(a), 96 Stat. 122. Funny, because my understanding is that the proper way to cite it would be "50 USC 421, et seq." But you wouldn't know that, would you?
But the name used to refer to it is "Intelligence Identities Protection Act." (with or without the 82) That is the correct way to refer to it and it is the only one that returns the correct section when searching the US Code on the GPO site. In fact, it says within the section itself that this is the title.
If you'd like some help, you can find it directly for yourself at the ACTUAL homepage for the US CODE not at some FEderation of American Scientists (which by the way you included the wrong link anyway).
Man, you are really out there.
First off, what part of the link is incorrect? That's what I thought.
Secondly, WTF? Seriously. Do you really, honestly think that you are such a big shot that you know where the GPO access website is? Good for you. You get a cookie. I work in a government depository, genius. Even at your own dick measuring game you lose. What idiot school is wasting money on you again?
And now for how you lied to me.
You did not get what you quoted off of the GPO access site. You want to know how I know? Because your copy was from before the 1999 ammendment.
Gotcha
The latest news has Republican Sen. Arlen Specter saying "recusal is something Ashcroft ought to consider." (CNN) I think that's something when you have a moderate Republican suggesting that Ashcroft's previous ties to Rove may compromise the investigation. It's not just Democrats anymore. I hope Olympia Snow and Voinovich come forward soon so we have a stronger collective of moderate voices.
INDEPENDENT COUNSEL NOW.
Moderate Republicans, come forth and support your fellow moderates!
Discusses various degrees of undercover - CIA levels
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html
www.fas.org is a link to the Federation of American Scientists.
just go there... that's what it links to! and the link you listed goes to the 1947 National Security Act
as for the amendments, the only difference is that instead of listing the amounts of the fines, they changed it to indicate that you shall be fined under title 18. sorry, I stand corrected.
But at any rate, who cares, I posted the law someone asked for. Do you really get off making a fool of yourself trying to correct someone and then linking to the Federation of American Scientists website as if it's some sort of authoritative site.
Originally posted by ShawnJ
What the hell are you talking about? Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Let's see. James Wilson makes a report and you act as though that's the last word, as though he had full and complete knowledge. He spent 10 days there. Is it THAT surprising to you that there are people who weren't impressed with what he brought back? Who's being obtuse? According to the CIA press release, he didn't contradict anything. What Wilson's report did was fail to confirm the allegations. It couldn't deny them. THOSE are the FACTS. Work from there. Maybe the allegations couldn't be confirmed because they weren't true or maybe because there's some evidence that hasn't been uncovered. The Brits STILL haven't budged from their story, though.
Originally posted by giant
The white house has admitted that in light of wilson's trip and the forged documents, the claim did not stand up to the facts...
No, they said the claim shouldn't have been in the speech. There's a difference.
It is clear that the US was going on only the intel we know about.
This is what Bush said. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It's clear he was basing the claim on British intel.
James Wilson
Joe Wilson.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Let's see. James Wilson makes a report and you act as though that's the last word, as though he had full and complete knowledge. He spent 10 days there. Is it THAT surprising to you that there are people who weren't impressed with what he brought back? Who's being obtuse? According to the CIA press release, he didn't contradict anything. What Wilson's report did was fail to confirm the allegations. It couldn't deny them. THOSE are the FACTS. Work from there. Maybe the allegations couldn't be confirmed because they weren't true or maybe because there's some evidence that hasn't been uncovered. The Brits STILL haven't budged from their story, though.
Why wouldn't I treat what Joseph Wilson found as if it's the last word? He was sent by the CIA to investigate whether Niger sold "yellowcake uranium" to Iraq. He said no, it was virtually impossible. And the CIA disagreed based on foreign government officials knowing that their words will be heard by the US? That's it? That's their entire basis for rejecting the Wilson report? If you looked at what Wilson actually found, you too would treat his report as fact. Tenet's comments do very little to discredit his findings. In fact- Wilson was right all along. Do you seriously think that Niger sold "yellowcake uranium" to Iraq? I mean that's something that has been discredited for a while now!
Tenet says very clearly that the "report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad." That's really not what Wilson was sent to Niger for given that it's just one country. Perhaps that's why Bush's 16 words included "Africa" and not "Niger?"
Originally posted by OBJRA10
Giant, what I'm talking about is the link you posted.
http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/laws/iipa.html
You still have the nerve to post here?
And look what you making an ass out of yourself again. Take a good hard look at that page and then read below.
www.fas.org is a link to the Federation of American Scientists.
*since you obviously lack the capability to discern it on your own, this is called sarcasm.
just go there... that's what it links to! and the link you listed goes to the 1947 National Security Act
That's 50 USC 421!!!! That's it, genius! Man.
as for the amendments, the only difference is that instead of listing the amounts of the fines, they changed it to indicate that you shall be fined under title 18. sorry, I stand corrected.
No!
You said "Actually, I pulled it straight off of the Government Printing Offices Access Site and copied it directly for you" which was a flat out lie. You then proceeded to use your lie to try to ridicule me.
But at any rate, who cares, I posted the law someone asked for.
It matters because you parade around here and lie that you are a law professor. You clearly NOT a law professor (as you claim to be) and know little or nothing about law (so little you don't even know how to correctly cite US Code). You also consistently have no clue what you are talking about and then lie when called on it.
Federation of American Scientists website as if it's some sort of authoritative site.
Did they alter the code? NO! So how does this matter at all? That's right it doesn't.
And do you even know what FAS is? Apparently not. Just like you don't know anything about law. Maybe you should find out about both rather than compulsively lying on appleinsider.
Originally posted by keyboardf12
Joe Wilson.
Literally.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
This is what Bush said. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." It's clear he was basing the claim on British intel.
Shawn, keyboard, bunge, do you guys have any ideas as to what's up with these two? This one, zaphod, keeps on asking about things that have been answered, only he doesn't know it because he refuses to read anything.
Is this what the 'conservative' side is now reduced to? It's really kind of sad to watch, actually.