Why must we go to Japan to see Niger discusion with Wilkinson Report?

[papau]

http://www.japantoday.com/e/?content=news&cat=8&id=265801



japantoday > world

White House admits Bush lied about Iraqi nukes


Wednesday, July 9, 2003 at 13:00 JST
WASHINGTON — After weeks of denial, the White House Monday finally admitted President George Bush lied in his January State of the Union Address when he claimed Iraq had sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa. The acknowledgment came as a British parliamentary commission questioned the reliability of British intelligence about Saddam Hussein's efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the war in Iraq. Bush said in his State of the Union address that the British government had learned that Saddam recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa. The president's statement was incorrect because it was based on forged documents from the African nation of Niger, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer acknowledged. An intelligence consultant who was present at two White House briefings where the uranium report was discussed confirmed that the President was told the intelligence was questionable and that his national security advisors urged him not to include the claim in his State of the Union address.

"The report had already been discredited," said Terrance J Wilkinson, a CIA advisor present at two White House briefings. "This point was clearly made when the president was in the room during at least two of the briefings." Bush's response was anger, Wilkinson said. "He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."

To date, American troops have found no proof of the existence of nuclear weapons in Iraq. Wilkinson retired two months later but says he wrote "numerous memos" questioning the wisdom of using "intelligence information that we knew to be from dubious sources." A British parliamentary committee has also concluded that Prime Minister Tony Blair's government mishandled intelligence material on Iraqi weapons.<snip>

[papau]

1. The Bush lie on Iraq Nuclear WMD even has Japan Letters to the editor

Much of the below has <snip> sections:

This is a misleading headline "White House admits Bush lied about Iraqi nukes" It should read: "White House admits Bush had incorrect information about Iraqi nukes" The man did not intentionally lie about it - he did not know those particular documents were forged.
But even if those particular documents were forged, that doesn't mean Iraq was not trying to acquire nukes. Who really believes Saddam had no interest in acquiring nukes, especially with his arch-rivals the Iranians going ahead with their own program?


"The man did not intentionally lie about it - he did not know those particular documents were forged." Yeah, right. Like, he was "out of the loop" (Bush I claim about Iran-Contra scandal) about those particular documents? This time the deniability is not plausible.


Lied? That's what hearings will determine...The following are possible:

1. Whitehouse was given the wrong intel and didnt know until after State of the Union.

2. Whitehouse got a conflicting report and chose to ignore it; listened to what they wanted to believe. (groupthink)

3. Whitehouse found out the report was erroneous BEFORE State of the Union and chose to include it anyway, to feign ignorance later.


White House admits Bush lied about Iraqi nukes "He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," In other words, if no one can prove this lie to be the truth, it must be a lie... unless you can find someone to "prove" it... Anybody??? Please??? "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country." Dubya has said that Iraq is "secure" - that the hostilities are over... Still no proof. Oh, but the hostilities are NOT over, so the world doesn't know yet... Okay, which lie do we believe this time?...


Well, Looky here......a tad deeper glimpse of ... the inner make-up of a psychotic PUNK. This says it ALL, about how the dogface rectumus maximus thinks.."Bush's response was anger", Wilkinson said.
"He said that if the current operatives working for the CIA couldn't prove the story was true, then the agency had better find some who could," Wilkinson said. "He said he knew the story was true and so would the world after American troops secured the country."


Yes, the article's title is almost a lie itself, unfortunately. The White House will never admit the truth, and most certainly will never admit having lied. That's an impeachable offense, isn't? ... At best they've concealed the truth and guessed wrong about things like Iraq's WMDs. We mustn't believe what we want to believe even if it is true, because the White House will in all probability get off the hook over this -- by lying their way out of it.

... by accident, it came to make this accusation. In reality, it was no accident at all, according to the man Dick Cheney sent to get to the bottom of the Iraq-Niger-uranium fantasy, career diplomat Joseph C. Wilson. In an op-ed article in The New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/06/opinion/06WILS.html), Wilson writes: "Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat." Most telling of all, Wilson also says he was asked to check out a memorandum making the accusation that Iraq was seeking uranium from Africa, but he was not given a copy of it (!) This was probably because the accusation was obviously bogus: According to Reuters (http://www.metimes.com/2K3/issue2003-13/reg/coalition_faked_it.htm), UN investigators found it to be an incredibly shoddy fake debunked by a "simple Internet search," which revealed the document got the name of both the foreign minister and of the government itself entirely wrong.As diplomat Wilson writes: "The vice president's office asked a serious question. I was asked to help formulate the answer. I did so, and I have every confidence that the answer I provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."The question now is how that answer was or was not used by our political leadership. If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."

---
"To put it bluntly, if Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he is cooked. Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be 'a high crime' under the Constitution's impeachment clause. It would also be a violation of federal criminal law, including the broad federal anti-conspiracy statute, which renders it a felony 'to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose.'"
-John Dean, former Nixon White House counsel, June 6, 2003


"The man did not intentionally lie about it - he did not know those particular documents were forged." Well, he did know, according to the article, that the information was based on faulty documents, and was therefore most probably incorrect. So, he willingly and intentionally made statements which he knew were most probably not true. You can argue about whether that is lying or not, but it is certainly not telling the truth.

[Brotherjohn]

2. Probably because it's not a reliable report.

I saw an earlier post on this and read the Japan Today article. It lifts straight from the Capitol Hill Blue story yesterday citing Terrance J. Wilkinson as a CIA insider who implicates Bush as knowing about and ignoring the CIA's opinion that the Niger evidence was fake. It has no original reporting (on that matter at least) and doesn't even cite Capitol Hill Blue. It is not independent confirmation of the same story. In short, it simply plagiarizes a dubious report.

I'd like as much as anybody to beleive the CHB story is true. I even found who I think this Wilkinson guy may be (if he's not a total straw man, and at least partially based in fact). Search Google for "CIA James Wilkinson" (The "J" could be "James"). You'll find him cited as a US Central Command spokesman in a NYTimes article on the hunt for Osama in June. He was in Iraq and gave "no comment" about Task Force 20's role (Task force 20 also hunts for WMD). Sounds like a CIA operative to me!

Nevertheless, I doubt the CHB story is true. For starters, why would a CIA operative come out with a claim that could potentially bring down the presidency in a small, questionable web-based blog? And why would CHB not lead with his allegations, rather than the WH admission about the Niger evidence being unreliable? Even on that basis, the headline was extremely misleading (The WH did not admit Bush lied).

All these problems are among why you have to go to Japan to read this. If there is any other independent confirmation, then more reputable news sources might pick it up. Let me know if you hear of any.

[papau]

3. We agree on take down the presidency - and Wilkinson must repeat

statement with other news sources for that to happen.

But in a world where allegations are in print and on Tv and radio every day, I do not buy the idea that this allegation must be confirmed before it is reported - reported as only an allegation at this point of course - in US Media.

[Brotherjohn]

5. I agree. But US Media will have to make their own determination...

...as to whether it is even a credible allegation before reporting it as an allegation. So far they have not done that. And while I realize the US Media have been sleepwalking through the last 2 years, the NY Times (Kristof in particular) and the Washington Post (Pincus in particular) would give ANYTHING to break this story mainstream.

[sirshack]

4. Someone needs to interview this guy....n/t

...