I didn't follow the Scooter Libby case close enough to even offer an opinion on the justice of the verdict against him. I would say that once again the cliche "it's not the crime it's the cover up" has been vindicated. But in this case, there has been no charge of a crime independent of the crimes committed in the cover up. Anyhow, I was amused to read the Associated Press's note that Libby was "the highest-ranking White House official convicted in a government scandal since National Security Adviser John Poindexter in the Iran-Contra affair two decades ago." Of course, higher officials in presidential administrations have been convicted of crimes since Poindexter. Henry Cisneros, for instance, comes to mind. Cisneros, technically, didn't work in the White House--at least not on a daily basis. And he's a Democrat, which makes such careful, specific language as "White House official," instead of "administration official," crucial. Also, you don't have to go back to the Reagan Administration to find a National Security Adviser convicted of a crime. Alas, Clinton Administration National Security Adviser Sandy Berger was not convicted in a "government scandal." The devil is in the details, the second cliche of this post, comes to mind when reading the AP account.

Is V.P. Chaney going to stand up and take the blame now? Like an honest Conservative Republican would do. (So my R. friends tell me.) Surely Scooter Libby isn't the only one headed to the slammer. Didn't the Pres. tell us that anyone involved would be fired?

This has been a travesty from the start and was always about a Democrat witch hunt / bag job. On its face, Plame was never “in” to ever be “out” in the first place and it was Dick Armitage, not Cheney, Rove or Libby, who first mentioned her name. Libby was the lowest on the chain so he took the fall.

60’s Berkley radical Wilson is a serial liar and he and his desk jockey wife came up with a bunch of them to discredit the Bush Administration. With the help of the media, they got a forum and the appearance of legitimacy that kept the heat up on this non crime.

The Moonbats are cheering as if they’ve struck a blow against the establishment and although the thinking left may be smiling, they know how dishonest and thin this alleged victory is.

Joe Wilson's trip to Niger was in 2002 and president Bush didn't mention those pesky "16 words" until the 2003 SOTU. So how did Joe Wilson know his trip would discredit the Bush Administration? Can he divine the future?

Nobody said Wilson's trip "discredited" the Bush Administration. His lies about the trip--for example that the Vice President knew about it and that it "showed" there were no attempts by Iraq to buy stuff from Niger were attempts to discredit the administration.

Exactly what blame would Cheney "stand up" to take--that he outed Plame? We know Armitage did that (and FitzGerald knew it was Armitage even before he questioned Libby). That he knew the 16 words weren't true? Last I heard the British still stand by the report so it was clearly true. That the 16 words shouldn't have been in the speech? Clearly not Cheney fault, and the White House long ago stood up and said that--though I don't know why. That the Clinton appointee George Tenet told Bush finding WMD would be a "slam dunk?" That's it.

If Cheney was all powerful he should have had Bush fire every Clinton holdover. They were all incompetent. But Bush was trying to be "bipartisan" and you got to believe Cheney couldn't have stopped him from doing that unless you're a conspiracy theorist who thinks Cheney has extraordinary powers.

Not excatly, Doc.

Colin Powell refused to cite Iraq's alleged attempt to procure uranium from Africa in his presentation before the United Nations -- only 8 days after Bush's fib about Iraq seeking uranium from Africa. Colin Powell did not make this charge because the information had already been discredited by the US intelligence community. Joe Wilson played no part in this and was a Johnny come lately on the issue.

Doc:
Wasn't the plan to 'out' Valeris Plame and get back at her husband Joe Wilson hatched in the V.Ps. office? Cheney and "Scooter" fished around among several reporters before they finally got one to run with it? I believe the testimony at the trial bears that out.

Guido

Guido,

I have heard of no evidence that "bears this out." Wilson had lied about how he got the assignment. To combat this lie those who were telling the truth had to point out that he got the assignment through his wife, and, to explain that, they had to say that she was with the CIA. (Note that no crime was involved in this truth telling since his wife wasn't "covert.") The first reporter to "run with it" was Bob Novak who received his information from Richard Armitage (who wasn't indicted since it wasn't a crime to "out" Plame and since he was connected with Colin Powell and not with the White House so FitzGerald had no political motive to go after him).

The only thing the testimony "bears out" is that Libby (or, alternatively, Tim Russert) misremembered some of the details of what was then a minor matter during hectic days. That he might have done it on purpose because he didn't fully understand the issues is also a possibility--though I find it relatively unlikely.

Eric Wilds,

Bush did not "fib." He related what British intelligence reported--and last I heard still stands by. After CIA ana-lysts digested Wilson's report from Niger they concluded (wisely) that it was mostly irrelevant to the issue and did not flag it for higher ups. The CIA report "discrediting" the British report had not been brought to the attention of relevant people in the White House--and the White House promptly acknowledged this and apolgized for it. By the way, who would you trust if you were president, British intelligence or the CIA (James Bond or Gearoge Tenet)?

Of course Joe Wilson is the biggest self-obsessed aging baby-boomer liberal douche I've ever seen, and of course the admin was all wrong about WMD and War in Iraq, but I think we are all getting distracted.

Perjury is a felony and people who commit it should go to jail, whether or not they are covering up a crime and whether or not they hold office or political power of any sort...

At least that is what I believed in 1998.

Didn't liberals back then believe the opposite? Namely: perjury isn't a big deal, let alone in a civil suit that was subsequently dismissed, and especially when it was about sex.

Doc: Bush chose his words carefully, reporting what the British reported to him. In that sense, he was not incorrect. But he has since admitted that what the British reported to him turned out to be incorrect. In journalistic parlance, he got burned by his source--that's the best spin I can give it. Bush doesn't stand by the British intelligence. His spokesman, Ari Fleischer admitted the that the Niger yellow-cake information was "bogus," "a forgery," and "incorrect." Here's the full transcript:
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0307/S00099.htm

Skeptic, Dan Flynn

Ari Fleisher did say those reports were false in 2003. He was wrong. That's not perjury. It's not even lying.

I don't have the time to summarize all the evidence on these matters. Fortunately, I do have one of the smartest lawyers on the planet to summarize my case for me. Here is Ann Coulter from her columns in late January and early February:
"But in fact, the British were right and Wilson was wrong. By now, everyone believes Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger -- the CIA, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's report in Britain, even the French believe it."

"Try this: Who told you Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife? Who told you a bipartisan Senate panel concluded that Joe Wilson was lying when he denied that his wife had sent him to Niger? While we're at it, who was the first person to correct you on your pronunciation of "Niger"?

"I don't remember, either -- and I'm not running a war.

"Perjury is intentionally swearing to something you know to be untrue -- not misremembering what later appears, on balance, not to be the truth.

"Here are some simple illustrations. If Clinton had been asked how many sexual encounters it took for him to remember Monica's name (six) and he got the answer wrong, it would not be perjury since, like Monica's name, it's an easy thing to forget.

"If Clinton had been asked whether he talked to Rep. Jim Chapman and then to Rep. John Tanner, or to Rep. Tanner and then to Rep. Chapman while Monica was performing oral sex on him in the Oval Office and he got the answer wrong, that would not be perjury because it's not relevant to the investigation. (Correct answer: Chapman, then Tanner.)

"But when Clinton was asked under oath -- in a case brought by Paula Jones under the law liberals consider more sacrosanct than any passed in the 20th century, Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act: "Mr. President ... at any time were you and Monica Lewinsky alone together in the Oval Office?" and he answered, "I don't recall," that was perjury.

"Now take the question: "Who first told you fantasist Wilson was sent to Niger by his wife?" Unless it actually was Captain Kirk of the Starship Enterprise -- the answer to that question is not going to be perjurious. No matter how many witnesses swear they told Libby first, if Libby honestly believed it was Russert, he didn't commit perjury."

Doc: You said that you believe Bush still stands by the British intelligence. He doesn't. You might. But he doesn't.

Dan Flynn,

Here is what I wrote, "Bush did not "fib." He related what British intelligence reported--and last I heard still stands by."

I intended for the subject of "still stands by" to be "British intelligence." Sorry for the ambiguity.

Doc,

Ann Coulter is incorrect in her assessment of this issue. British intelligence regarding Iraq's attempt to procure uranium came from the same reports referencing the forged documents. That is why George Tenet, DCI at the time, said Bush's "16 words" should never have been in Bush's State of the Union Address. They knew that British intelligence regarding uranium was referencing the same forged documents. Citing British intelligence was just a sly way to get that into the State of the Union Address since Bush had already been cautioned against using that "intelligence" back in October of 2002.

You then cite the erroneous statement by Ann Coulter:

"But in fact, the British were right and Wilson was wrong. By now, everyone believes Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger -- the CIA, the bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee, Lord Butler's report in Britain, even the French believe it."

If Ann Coulter really believes this then she hasn't kept up on this story too well, or she's just lying.

Here is a quote from the Robb Silberman Commission's report discussing their findings. This commission was appointed by president Bush to investigate why all the claims regarding WMD were wrong. Also it is the most conclusive since it was the latest and could digest the Butler Report, the Senate Select report, and others.

"The Iraq Survey Group also found no evidence that Iraq sought uranium from abroad after 1991."

So much for Ann Coulter's BS.

And it continues:

"With respect to the reports that Iraq sought uranium from Niger, ISG interviews with Ja'far Diya Ja'far, the head of Iraq's pre-1991 enrichment programs, indicated that Iraq had only two contacts with the Nigerien government after 1998--neither of which was related to uranium. 114 One such contact was a visit to Niger by the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican Wissam Zahawie, the purpose of which Ja'far said was to invite the Nigerien President to visit Iraq (a story told publicly by Zahawie). 115 The second contact was a visit to Iraq by a Nigerien minister to discuss Nigerien purchases of oil from Iraq--with no mention of 'any kind of payment, quid pro quo, or offer to provide Iraq with uranium ore, other than cash in exchange for petroleum.' 116 The use of the last method of payment is supported by a crude oil contract, dated June 26, 2001, recovered by the ISG. 117"

And it gets even better:

"CIA subsequently issued a recall notice at the beginning of April, 2003 for the three original reports, noting that 'the foreign government service may have been provided with fraudulent reporting.' 215 On June 17, 2003, CIA produced a memorandum for the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI) stating that 'since learning that the Iraq-Niger uranium deal was based on false documents earlier this spring we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad.'"

Understand? The British intelligence that Bush cited was referencing the same forgery as US intelligence. However, since Bush had already been told not to cite US intelligence regarding Iraq's attempt to procure uranium from Africa he cites British intelligence.

So Bush is fibbing.

And Ann is lying.

Here are the infamous sixteen words: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." What jumps out at anyone paying attention is: why would the president of the United States cite a foreign intelligence source if his own intelligence agencies were saying the same thing? Because they weren't saying the same thing. The answer does not require Sherlock Holmes. American intelligence did not feel confident about the Niger-Iraq yellowcake story, so rather than report U.S. intelligence's doubts, Bush reported a foreign intelligence's charges. As was the case with the phantom meeting between Muhammad Atta and Iraqi intelligence in Prague, an administration figure relied on foreign intelligence and got burnt. I think they did this because they were making a case, rather than seeking the truth. Why they did it, however, is not is important as the fact that they did it, i.e., they peddled information from foreign sources (that U.S. intelligence doubted) that turned out to be untrue or at the least unsubstantiated.

Dan,

In Bush's State of the Union Address the term "British intelligence" is just a euphemism for the uranium documents. So Bush was not really citing "foreign intelligence" but the uranium forgery -- he was just referencing the British reports on it, and not the US reports. What's the difference though? Both reports are based on the same forgery. Citing British intelligence was just a sneaky way of inserting a known falsehood -- Iraq's attempt to procure uranium -- into his speech.

Colin Powell refused to cite this falsehood to the United Nations only 8 days later because it was widely known the documents were forgeries. However, once the IAEA publicly exposed the documents as forgeries the CIA went on the record saying Bush's 16 words should never have been part of the speech. This proves that "British intelligence" was just the uranium forgeries and nothing else.

And yes, it proves we were lied into war.

Eric Wilds post a lot of material from the Robb report all of which he summarizes by saying "Understand? The British intelligence that Bush cited was referencing the same forgery as US intelligence." And then he concludes that Bush was lying.

Here's what the Butler Commission said, "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." (p. 125) (Note that nothing posted by Wilds from the Robb report denies or contradicts what the Butler Commission said. I have seen nothing that contradicts it.)

Dan Flynn questions why the President would cite foreign intelligence. There are many possible reasons. The most obvious answer is that "sometimes your friends know things you don't." Certainly the British have sources they (intelligently) don't share with us. The Robb Commission does provide important information on this issue:
"The CIA had still not evaluated the authenticity of the documents when it coordinated on the State of the Union address, in which the President noted that the "British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." 208 Although there is some disagreement about the details of the coordination process, no one in the Intelligence Community had asked that the line be removed. 209 At the time of the State of the Union speech, CIA ana-lysts continued to believe that Iraq probably was seeking uranium from Africa, although there was growing concern among some CIA ana-lysts that there were problems with the reporting. 210"

Remember, too, that that the Robb report concluded that in no instance did Bush administration authorities pressure intelligence officials to alter their findings nor did the administration "cherry-pick" the intelligence.

"Sometimes your friends know things that you don't", Doc? Then, by definition, you don't know the truth of those things. You have no business repeating them. Bush repeated someone else's intelligence. He now acknowledges the information was inaccurate. He did something foolish and it had consequences. What intelligence do you have that the president doesn't that makes you believe the Niger-yellowcake story? Niger and Iraq deny the story, as does the man--Bush--repeating the charge.

Eric, I wonder if you play into the hands of Bush partisans by shifting the argument from a question of gross negligence to one of mendacity. Isn't incompetence bad enough? The 9/11-Iraq "connection," giving credence to the forged Niger documents, the mirage of weapons of mass destruction, et cetera, et cetera is indefensible. It's possible that Bush administration figures lied. But it's also possible that they were mistaken. People caught up in causes delude themselves into believing falsehoods true when it serves their causes. I wrote a book about this. The Bush-is-a-liar argument, given the information that we have, is, I think, unwinnable. Making it puts you in a position of divining motives. Rather than play into the hands of Bush zombies, why not just say that Bush was wrong on numerous crucial issues that led to a disastrous war?

If the British had good intelligence on December 1, 1941 that the Japanese would bomb Pearl Harbor and had told FDR, it certainly would have been his "business to repeat" such things and repeat them to those who needed to make decisions to limit the damage.

It was certainly Bush's business to repeat such things as well. Whether it was wise or not is another matter, but I stand by the statement you disputed, I believe there are many reasons why a President would (and sometimes should) repeat others' intelligence.

My reasons for belief in this report are simple. I trust the British government on such matters and nobody else has related any information that would contradict their report. If a friend tells me "I went to the store yesterday" and a million people swear to me they didn't see him at any store, I still believe my friend. He might have gone to a store where they weren't. Since Saddam could have sent any of hundreds of people and since they could have tried to bargain for yellowcake with any of hundreds of people, one trustworthy report that such a meeting occurred cannot be disproven by a million reports saying a person has no independent evidence of its occurring.

"Here's what the Butler Commission said, '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.'"

It's true the forged documents did not come into the hands of the British until after the assessment was made, but this is a distinction without a difference because they had "reports" that were issued out France based on the forged documents. It wasn't as if someone just passed along the forged documents to every intelligence agency in the west. Italy (SISMI) issued reports based on the forgery, which it sent to various intelligence agencies. Then those intelligence agencies drew inferences from the reports.

That is why once the uranium documents were exposed as forgeries by the IAEA George Tenet had to publicly say that those 16 words should never have been in Bush's State of the Union Address. There were other "reports" but those "reports" were referencing the forgeries, so what good were they?

"At the time of the State of the Union speech, CIA ana-lysts continued to believe that Iraq probably was seeking uranium from Africa, although there was growing concern among some CIA ana-lysts that there were problems with the reporting. 210"

This quote from the Robb report really leaves much to be desired. If the CIA felt comfortable with president Bush saying Iraq was trying to procure uranium from Africa, then why didn't this charge make it into Colin Powell's presentation before the United Nations only one week later? The Robb report never indicates when the "intelligence" on the uranium documents was dismissed, and that's very telling. Bush's SOTU was on Jan 28 and Powell's speech on Feb 5. What transpired in this time to discredit the uranium forgeries? As I see it, nothing -- at least the Robb report doesn't clarify. And that's probably because it was known before Jan 28 that the uranium documents were forgeries, but Bush cited them anyway. So there is a very good case to be made that someone -- not necessarily Bush -- deliberately and knowingly inserted a falsehood into Bush's speech.

Dan,
"Gross negligence" doesn't really describe the lengthy campaign by the Bush Administration to stampede America into war. They knew exactly what they were doing and they craftily marketed fear of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction to an impressionable public still feeling the trauma of 9/11. A Car dealer who sells you a lemon doesn't do so because he's "negligent" but because he wants to make a fast buck. The Bush Administration wanted a war in Iraq -- WMD was just the sales pitch.

All of the "raw" intelligence that went into the NIE of October of 2002 was vanishing into thin air by March of 2003 -- the uranium forgeries, the aluminum tubes, Curveball's testimony (mobile bio weapon labs), the suspect chemical sites cited by Colin Powell (Blix inspected them all), the unmanned drones, and so on. Going to war as the case for war crumbles isn't "negligence" but willful deception.

If all the evidence regarding someone on death row had been discredited or called into question, and the relevant parties knew this, but decided to go ahead with the execution because they had a personal vendetta against the accused, is this "negligence?" That's not what I would call it. More like murder.

For those of you interested in the truth and confused by Wilds accusations, I reproduce here a few paragraphs from an uncontroverted report that explains why, as Ann Coulter said "even the French," now believe Iraq was soliticing yellowcake from Niger. Note that it was "smugglers" being solicited so official denials from Niger (like the one Wilson put so much faith in) do not controvert the report.

Financial Times (London, England) June 28, 2004 Monday
Pg. 1
Intelligence backs claims Iraq had talks on uranium By MARK HUBAND

Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the US-led invasion, according to senior European intelligence officials.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.

These claims support the assertion in the British government dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales, apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein's regime, were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be fakes. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its claim.

But European intelligence officials have confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.

Officials said the fake documents, which emerged in October 2002 and have been traced to an Italian with a record for extortion and deception, added little to the picture from human intelligence and were only given weight by the Bush administration.

According to a senior counter-proliferation official, meetings between Niger officials and would-be buyers from the five countries were held in several European countries, including Italy. Although the European intelligence material suggests a proactive role by the sellers of the uranium, intelligence officials say that Iraq actively sought supplies.

Intelligence officers were convinced that the uranium would be smuggled from abandoned mines in Niger, circumventing official export controls. "The sources were trustworthy. There were several sources, and they were reliable sources," an official involved in the European intelligence gathering operation said.

The UK government used the details in its Iraq weapons dossier after concluding that it corresponded with other information it possessed, including evidence gathered by GCHQ, the eavesdropping centre, of a visit to Niger by an Iraqi official.

Like most of the information regarding Iraq's attempt to procure uranium from Niger, this is uncorroborated bunk. For the record, neither the CIA, the ISG, the IAEA, nor the most authoritative (so far) ana-lysis of the WMD fiasco -- the Robb Silberman report -- concluded that Iraq ever sought uranium from Africa. When Ann says everyone now thinks Iraq sought uranium from Africa, she is lying or terribly misinformed and has no business writing columns.

The A.Q. Khan network had extensive ties in Niger, as well as through front companies in Dubai, and all the reports indicate that all overtures made toward Iraq were turned down by Saddam Hussein.

Here is a quote from the Robb report:

"The ISG found a document in the headquarters of the Iraqi Intelligence Service that reveals that a Ugandan businessman had approached the Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi with an offer to sell uranium, reportedly from the Congo. The Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi, reporting back to Baghdad on the matter on May 20, 2001, indicated that the Embassy told the Ugandan that Iraq did not deal with "these materials" because of the sanctions."

So Iraq turned down all attempts to buy uranium when they were offered.

Lastly, even British intelligence (Butler Report)doesn't claim Iraq tried to procure uranium from Iraq. They just say it's "well founded." In other words, they do not possess a single scintilla of evidence not known to our intelligence community or to the IAEA. They just think it's "reasonable" to conclude Iraq tried to procure uranium from Africa. Of course in October of 2002 it was "well founded" to suspect Iraq still had unaccounted for weapons or might be producing new weapons. This "well founded" belief was false. "Well founded" is just a weasel term the Brits use to avoid saying they were wrong.

Eric Wilds concludes from evidence of one embassy's rejection of a deal that "Iraq turned down all attempts to buy uranium when they were offered."

He next takes a quote from an official report that obviously could not reveal details but, nonetheless, stated that evidence for Iraqi attempts at such deals were "well-founded" and concludes "In other words, they do not possess a single scintilla of evidence not known to our intelligence community or to the IAEA. "

I conclude that moral indignation (so common among modern ideologues) tends to make people irrational, even readers of Flynnfiles. (So ideology does make smart people stupid--Were Wilds' posts a sneaky way to further convince me of Flynn's thesis?)

Note that my generalized conclusion, unlike Wilds' conclusions, is supported by two instances (not one) and is not officially contradicted by those who have much more information on the subject.

I saw moral indignation over Vietnam distort the reasoning ability of most of my generation. It is sad to see it happening again. If we didn't place so much faith and hope in government, we might not be so indignant when government, limited tool that it is, turns out to be incapable of accomplishing much of anything without making many mistakes along the way.

Dan wrote: "The answer does not require Sherlock Holmes. American intelligence did not feel confident about the Niger-Iraq yellowcake story, so rather than report U.S. intelligence's doubts, Bush reported a foreign intelligence's charges."

I doubt that the US intelligence felt that confident about the warnings from the Mossad either. Sorry about this, I am chiefly an anti-conspiracy guy. Looking at this at a chiefly human reaction, I see a more innocent oversight. People were taking Bush to task about warnings he and the system did not heed about 9/11. (Even if perhaps overblown.)

So what if he showed some reluctance to accept in-house calls as his reference point. When people say that the Bush Administration "pushed" the CIA to find something more in line with the Brits, as far as I can see it, the trust was a little eroded in the home team.

Someone told George that he would be a historical president. I think he wanted to be. He wanted to The "Educational President" while we were focusing on our navels. I just think there is a valid case for the idea that 9/11 was like waking up with the house on fire. (Provided that he didn't stage it, that is.) You might never find the same ease with somebody telling you, there's nothing there. And you might always ponder the price.

I think that same human angle also explains why "The Education President" didn't throw down My Pet Goat run out the door and buzz off on Airforce One, the minute the WTC had been struck. Had it turned out to be just a plane flying into a building, that might have looked like when given the chance, "The Education President" left the kids in the lurch to do "real presidential work". I can remember people at work: One plane, and there was a discussion about air traffic screwups--although it could be an attack. Two planes, while "The Education President" sat and calmly read My Pet Goat made it obvious. We mostly looked at each other and said "That was no accident!"

Eric,

You're a smart guy. But you're missing how your claims and Doc's are mostly zooming past each other in different lanes.

"Iraq had only two contacts with the Nigerien government after 1998."

That means nothing if it's not the Nigerian government brokering the deal. And that should be clear by your statements that 1) "neither of [the two contacts] was related to uranium" and yet 2) "Ugandan businessman had approached the Iraqi Embassy in Nairobi with an offer to sell uranium" and it didn't have to be the Ugandan government?!? How many official contacts did Iraq have with the Ugandan government about yellowcake? And what would that say about the former case?

If businessmen can arrange a deal outside of their government, then this point has no affect on the claim that illicitly mined Uranium was smuggled and shopped.

"[N]o mention of 'any kind of payment, quid pro quo, or offer to provide Iraq with uranium ore, other than cash in exchange for petroleum."

Sorry, that convinces the convinced. It injects assumptions about how the shopping was exactly structured in order to refute them. (And in that sense, it's a type of strawman.)

Ann wrote "The former prime minister of Niger told him [Wilson] that in 1999 Saddam had sent a delegation to discuss 'expanding commercial relations' with Niger". That Iraq had no other contacts doesn't even matter if this refers to the same instance of the one to "discuss Nigerien purchases of oil from Iraq". I don't see how they conflict unless it can be shown that the only thing discussed was oil. There would not have to be a "quid pro quo" for the topic to be broader. But once in a trade relationship, that frees one up to make connections with Nigerian businessmen selling contraband.

Ann also invites the idea that the PM might have been whitewashing the exchange to Wilson (I have no opinion on this). In fact, the confidence that there was no "quid pro quo" mentioned might stem from Wilson's report and thus the PM's account originally. Can Heads of State in other countries lie (and cause people to die, of course) or is it just ours?

Zoom.

Again, Coulter--in 2007--is lying or a moron for saying that "By now [2007], everyone believes Saddam was seeking yellowcake from Niger" which you refute by citing a memorandum on "June 17, 2003". Which says little about Ann's piece. Ann is not contending that at no time has this ever been in doubt, but literally by now "everyone believes". Which means this can operate under a progression, and let me go out on a limb and assume this can happen
over a four-year period.

Also, I think Doc maintains his point pretty well that the documents were forged, but that does not entirely mean that the situation had no merit. The documents were fully discredited, and Doc even provides more detail in that direction. The question has always been that although the documents were seen as the most overt evidence--and emphasized because of this--were they the only evidence?

As for Iraq's refusal, well again, human ana-lysis can kind of cast a shadow on this as well. Say, you're a congressman taking bribes. You don't know me or much about me and nobody in your circuit recommends me, and I want to bribe you. You smell a rat. So, is it just because you say, "I don't care what you heard, I'm not the kind of man that can be bought," that should end the question of whether or not you've ever accepted bribes? Say you're a drug dealer. If I don't come to you with the best credentials, you might say that you don't know what I'm talking about. Does that answer questions forevermore?

All that would be required is for Iraq to feel that the deal is "too easy" in order for them to give such a refusal.

It also helps to get a perspective on what real "spy work" is like: Reading novels and newspapers and keeping an eye on the media and watching highway traffic and shipments. Now, if you read three different novels from three different authors reflecting some inkling that there was a top secret factory somewhere in the vicinity of the Urals, how confident can you be in this wisp of information from newspaper clippings that aren't specifically about the raising and openings of new super secret factories? Perhaps there's just a snippet about a crime uncovered in a background check, and a greater concentration of background checks and ID purchases in a certain region. They probably wouldn't even have mentioned the background check overtly in the press, you'd just have to know that the official source is related to those things from your network. It can take years to sort out the truth. And often intelligence relies on people with amazing intuition and insight, that it would just look embarrassing laid out in a congressional hearing. Thus the field confidence can be higher than the documented proof, and there might be a tendency to grab the bait a little too hard if you stumble on something more solid.

If you want a good demonstration, take a look at the Verona cables. These guys weren't fools, nothing on the paper seems that incriminating. They had to rigorously correlate times, places and contacts in order to get a pretty clear picture that "LIBERAL" was Julius Rosenberg.

The same data is both inconsequential an revealing. In some senses, it reflects what the viewer wants to see. So it gets denied as inconclusive, because you can hardly argue it--despite being convincing to the network. So again, if you get a president looking for what other sharks may be out in the waters, you can get ripples that aren't just settled and over by 2003 and that's it.

I don't know how credible Coulter's claim is. I'm just pretty sure you're not bringing specific against it. You seem to be suggesting that anything that was settled in 2003 is long since settled. Nothing argues against a possible resurgent tide of confidence in something that received a blow because of its association with a forgery. I'm not sure how accurate of a picture this is, but espionage will be pretty darn easy if all you have to do is cover your tracks with forgeries that allege to the crime your going to commit.

Imagine, to assassinate Chavez all we have to do is float a forgery of Rumsfeld advocating the assassination. Given that the opposition is frustrated enough by the trail in order to take the hook and run, you can later let this document be proven a forgery--which it is--embarrass its champions into recants and somehow settle the question forevermore because people can always point to no confidence statements. Now, that's not too easy--but I'm sure to the guys who masterminded 9/11 it's an easier job.