| Thursday,
October 2, 2003 I cannot believe the
time and energy being wasted on this Niger uranium nonsense.
What's known?
1. British Intelligence purports to have believed, and still to
believe, that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium in Niger.
2. There were some documents purporting to prove that which turned out
to be forgeries.
3. British Intelligence purpose still to believe that Saddam Hussein
tried to buy uranium in Niger.
4. The CIA sent over a retired US diplomat with connections to Saudi
Arabia, whose views on the war and the Bush Administration were well
known, to Niger. According to his own account he spent his time in the
Embassy questioning people. If he spoke to any British Intelligence
officers, or asked why they believe, or say they believe, the story none
of that appeared in his report, nor does it say anything about whether he
believes the report reliable (i.e. that the Brits believe it). He does say
that it's not valid (i.e. there's no evidence that Saddam tried to buy
uranium in Niger).
5. The retired diplomat with consulting ties to Saudi Arabia produced
the report that any of us would have expected him to produce before he
ever went over there. Later he wrote public articles saying the same
things, and reporting that he had been sent on this mission.
6. Someone told Novak that Wilson's wife was employed by the CIA, and
that was the reason Wilson was chosen to go to Niger.
7. Wilson's wife was in fact employed by the CIA and had been for some
time.
8. Novak says "The published report that somebody in the White
House failed to plant this story with six reporters and finally found me
as a willing pawn is simply untrue."
Beyond all that is only speculation.
I have the following from a reader:
Wilson went to Niger and found that the ore
stays under the control of a European consortium that mines it -
there was no way for the Nigerian government to get at the stuff without
leaving a trail. All they get is some money, if and when prices are
high enough. If the Nigerien governent could get its hand on the
stuff, obviously it would have beeen a lot harder to find whether anything
had been diverted or not - but as it turns out, it was _obvious_ .
Back on that letter - the IAEA managed to determine that it was a forgery
rather rapidly, mostly by using Google. Turns out that signatures
were A. in the names of Nigerien cabinet officers who had been out
office for years at the time of the supposed deal and B. not their
signatures anyhow. Now you know what it takes to fake out the US
government.
Aside from the fact that Niger is not Nigeria, I am not sure this is
relevant to the charge made: that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium ore
from Niger. I do not recall that it was ever reported that he was
successful. Nor does it answer the question of why the Brits purported to
believe the story, or whether they really did and do believe it. It's
pretty certain that sending a retired US diplomat with consulting ties to
Saudi Arabia will never discover the reliability of the British report,
although it may find evidence of the validity.
Incidentally, faith in a European consortium that mines the stuff not
to be susceptible to bribes and threats is touching. I haven't had any
direct experience with African politics for decades now, but I certainly
remember that back when I did, honesty and integrity were in pretty short
supply among officials, black, white, European, Colonial, or native
born.
And enough on this silliness. But of course there's
even more.
Clear Thinking on Iraq: A
Question
What we need to be thinking about is what to do about Iraq.
The choices are pretty simple:
Figure out how to declare victory and get out, or "stay the
course."
That second alternative has many variants. If it means "stay until
Iraq is a stable unified democracy," Hell will freeze over before we
get out. It won't happen.
So: we're back to alternative one, figure out how to declare victory
and get out. What will we accept as conditions in Iraq before we are
willing to leave? That, I put it to you, is the real question here.
WHAT MUST HAPPEN IN IRAQ before we are willing to get out of there?
Suggestions?
And in case you missed it there are new
trojan warnings in MAIL
Feeling Safer:
There's a bit in today's Los Angeles Times about a computer program
that's supposed to spot potential terrorists riding on airplanes, and
subject them to increased surveillance.
It is not allowed to consider ethnicity or religion.
The mind boggles.
But the real point is so what? What if box cutters or even combat
knives get onto airplanes? The real security is better cockpit doors,
armed pilots, and rules that make it clear the airplane ain't going to be
turned over to no terrorist nohow.
If I want to murder the passenger next to me, a ball point pen will do
about as well as a box cutter. Or a safety razor blade. What good is
preventing box cutters, nail files, or even combat knives going to do?
Saw MYSTIC RIVER last night. Alas, it will not be the movie of the
month. I don't want to be a spoiler, but if you have a logical turn of
mind you will not care for this movie. The plot depends on a series of
coincidences that are just hard to believe.
Good performances by Bacon and Fishbourne. Not very satisfactory
ending. Far too many closeups of face acting.
TOP
Current Mail
|
CLICK HERE for
a Special Request. 
Subject:
Critical IE patch ( priority one)