We leave Mr. Kleiman, below, to do the heavy lifting, and content ourselves with a swipe at the Old Grey lady and their coverage of the Ambassador Wilson affair (The "Who Named Plame Blame Game").
From the front page story by Carl Hulse and David E. Sanger:
It was Mr. Wilson who, more than a year and a half ago, concluded in a report to the C.I.A. that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium ore in Niger in an effort to build nuclear arms.
Oh, please. Here is the original "What I Didn't Find in Africa" article. The Ambassador makes a big deal out of his conclusion that no sales of yellowcake had taken place. His account in the Times made no reference to any investigation of "attempts" by the Iraqis to purchase uranium.
However, he did report such attempts to the CIA, if we can believe George Tenet and British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw. I excerpt Mr. Tenet:
In an effort to inquire about certain reports involving Niger, CIA's counter-proliferation experts, on their own initiative, asked an individual with ties to the region to make a visit to see what he could learn. He reported back to us that one of the former Nigerien officials he met stated that he was unaware of any contract being signed between Niger and rogue states for the sale of uranium during his tenure in office. The same former official also said that in June 1999 a businessman approached him and insisted that the former official meet with an Iraqi delegation to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between Iraq and Niger. The former official interpreted the overture as an attempt to discuss uranium sales. The former officials also offered details regarding Niger's processes for monitoring and transporting uranium that suggested it would be very unlikely that material could be illicitly diverted. There was no mention in the report of forged documents -- or any suggestion of the existence of documents at all.
Because this report, in our view, did not resolve whether Iraq was or was not seeking uranium from abroad, it was given a normal and wide distribution, but we did not brief it to the President, Vice-President or other senior Administration officials.
Now, this was released after the Yellowcake flap was underway, and may have a certain self-serving quality. However, the Brits claim to have seen the original report, and provide a similar description.
So, the NY Times is pretty much exactly wrong on this. In March 2003 the IAEA comments on this 1999 trade visit (see extended excerpts, or CNN transcript), and seems to be reassured, but it was not the Wilson report that did it.
MORE: The Times tries again with more success on Tuesday:
Mr. Novak's column centered on a retired diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson 4th, who concluded more than a year and a half ago in a report for the C.I.A. that there was no clear evidence that Saddam Hussein had tried to buy uranium ore from Africa in order to build nuclear weapons.
And the WaPo really gives us a laugh with this courageous, take-a-stand reporting:
Wilson has drawn attention for his report on a trip he took to Niger for the CIA that, he said, did not confirm an administration charge that Iraq's Saddam Hussein was seeking nuclear materiel in that country.
Well, if he says so.
Extended Excerpt
From International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei's March 7, 2003 presentation to the U.N.
Uranium Acquisition
The IAEA has made progress in its investigation into reports that Iraq sought to buy uranium from Niger in recent years. 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 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 also 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. However, we will continue to follow up any additional evidence, if it emerges, relevant to efforts by Iraq to illicitly import nuclear materials.
Hi Tom,
If you read the big interview with Joseph Wilson at Talking Points Memo, http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/wilson.interview.pdf, you'll see that he isn't too impressed by the "attempt" to buy uranium. The money quote (top of page 17) is:
The fact that there was a meeting that was not taken, that was not held, but had it been held, one of the participants opines that perhaps uranium might have been one of the things that this guy might have wanted to discuss, does not suggest uranium sales or significant quantities of uranium from Niger to Iraq. So, those were both--I thought those were both really red herrings.
I agree with you that "no evidence" of any attempt is a bit strong. But it's true to say that Wilson found no evidence that any attempt had got past the casual, exploratory stage. The NYT should have got it right, but I don't think that sentence is seriously misleading.
Posted by: William | September 30, 2003 at 01:34 AM
I can hardly believe it -- someone is actually dealing in a careful and serious way with the underlying issue!
To this day, the routine phrase used by major media in reference to the SOTU Sixteen is "discredited reports" of Iraqi uranium shopping. Of course this is completely and indefensibly inaccurate. As your post and the first comment remind us, the assessment made by the UK (and apparently another intel service) on the matter is, at most, "disputed."
Since none of us have access to the original reporting or analysis on which the President's SOTU statement was based, and the CIA has not divulged the reasons for their doubts, we're left to wonder. But on currently public info, no one has any basis for calling the assessment referenced in the SOTU "discredited." And Wilson's reporting didn't change the UK's position on the matter.
Amusingly, today's WaPo article on the intel issues related to the Wilson thing -- in its very last paragraph -- reports yet another British reaffirmation of their assessment:
"As for the information provided by the other British source, the committee said that after questioning the SIS 'about the basis of its judgment,' it had determined the dossier statement on Iraq seeking uranium in Africa was "reasonable."
(This was the very last paragraph. Typcial. Imagine a WaPo or NYT or Reuters article pointing out that the UK stood by its assessment, with this sort of info in the lead, and a headline like "UK Still Backs Bush Uranium Reference". OK, I was just kidding, it's unimaginable.)
And of course PM Blair publicly reaffirmed his confidence in the assessment during his summer visit to Washington.
I'll bet many people who read the WaPo story (all the way through, of course) will be shocked to learn that the President's famous SOTU passage is far from being based on "discredited" intel.
Posted by: IceCold | September 30, 2003 at 03:20 AM
do penis enlargement pills work for you ?
do penis enlargement work for you ?
Posted by: penis | October 03, 2006 at 06:49 AM