Hitchens pretending Not to Know How Uranium Mining Works

[alcibiades_mystery]

http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/nav/tap2

What a complete joke he's made of himself. He's so humiliated by his asinine "contrarian" support for this catastrophic war that he will actually play thye naif in order to propagandize for it. And, of course, dim-witted ignorants in all camps follow along with his rank stupidities, also pretending. Since he likes the phrase so much, here's what you'd "have to believe":

1) That an emissary of Iraq can walk into Niger - on an "official visit," mind you, which would mean that he travelled openly(!) - hang out with some "corrupt" Nigerese bigwig (the racist implication is obvious, and not uncommon for Hitchens), and thereby "procure" some quantity of yellowcake uranium. The absolute laughability of this scenario is obvious to anyone with a hint of sense. Or to anyone not mesmerized by Bushista bullshit.

2) The French intelligence service would have to be "informed" of said "official trip" (!) by the - excuse me while I spit up laughing - Italian intelligence agencies, as if every fucking gram of uranium and any contemplation of sale thereof isn't controlled by French mining companies stacked to the gills with operatives for the Secretariat General de la Defense Nationale.

I mean, please. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to believe any of this. And, in fact, Hitchens is no idiot. A sly propagandist and outright opportunist, to be sure. A drunken self-aggrandizer and DC party circuit regular, yeah. But an idiot? Hardly. His excruciatingly pathetic defense of this long-debunked stupidity is crafted specifically to avoid these implications, which assures us that he is aware of them. His article is, therefore, a pack of outright lies, though as Twain has told us, and previous adherents of this article prove, a lie travels round the world before the truth gets its pants on.

[McCamy Taylor]

1. Hitchens is a low brow with a thesaurus who licks jack boots

Here is what I posted at the Slate:

Here are some other alternatives which Mr. Hitchens has not excluded as being impossible:

1. Iraq's ambassador was told to curry favor with as many oil impoverished muslim nations as possible to increase the number of votes Iraq could count upon in the UN

2. Iraq needed food and Niger exports food such as livestock which would be palatable to muslims. This would increase the number of potential oil for food barterers.

3. Iraq was serving as a mediator to its business partner, France, in a dispute between it and its old colony, Niger. The pay off for Iraq would come in lucrative oil for extra kickback deal from France. The visit occured at a time when France was having some tension with Niger and a visitor from another Iraqi nation might have been beter received than one from France.

4. Let's discount no possibilty. Since Bush and Blair want to say that Iraq was up to no good and tried to buy Uranium, let's say that Iraq was up to no good and was sent in by its business partner to help mastermind the coup and assassination of Niger's president, so that the new France friendly Niger regime could be put into place. This would not be the first time that France has stuck its nose into African politics, but it would explain why France was solidly opposed to attacking Sadaam on the grounds of WMDs.

Sherlock Holmes would not be satisfied until all these alternative scenerios have been ruled impossible, and frankly, I tend to think that the timing of the visit in relation to Niger's coup is pretty damn interesting. It is just the we in America act like Africa has no politics.

[Chomp]

2. Ok,

since it seems I'm the only idiot left to defend Hitchens, I'll give it a go! Gulp...

1. The article does not say that al-Zawahie "procured" uranium during his 1999 visit as your post suggests. It merely says that he made the visit. Hitchens then asks what he was there for if not to sound out the Niger governement about uranium, given that is about the only thing Niger has going for it. I think that is a reasonable issue to raise.

2. I cannot make out your allegation about racism at all. Could you quote the passage, because I've looked and can't see it. Unless you consider the allegation that African countries/governments are riddled with corruption to be in itself racist? To me it seems self-evidently true. Also, since you say that Hitchens has form in terms of racism, could you point me to some instances? That's a very strong allegation and I need to read more.

3. The article says that since al-Zawahie travelled from Rome, it was the Italians who first noticed his trip. This to me is not inconceivable, althogh admittedly it would be odd if the French didn't know about it in advance. I'm not sure how material this is to the substantive issue anyway.

4. On the issue of Frnch control of uranium, you are absolutely right, and succesive studies and reports have shown that there was basically no chance that Iqaq could get yellowcake with out someone noticing. But again, there is no suggestion in the article that any such transaction went through. Hitchens is merely saying that Iraq's top nuclear man was in Niger in 1999 for no apparant good reason. I say that logic dictates that this may well have been a "sounding out" of the situation vis a vis uranium.

5. It is my understanding that these events PRE-DATE the events that Wilson went to investigate, which allegedly happened in 2001, not 1999. Wilson (rightly) debunked the 2001 allegations as lies/forgeries. But that leaves the issue of the 1999 visit from al-Za that Hitchens highlights.

6. Hitchens a propagandist? No way. He is a free thinker.

7. Hitchens an opportunist? Probably.

--------------------

Why is this article so important? Because if liberals say that Iraq never sought uranium-based ties with Niger and that turns out to be not true, then liberals lose control of the facts. Which, after all, are the only way.

___________________

Finally, I carry no agenda or ideolgy with me on this issue and I will immediatedly apologise and withdraw any of my above comments if they are sucessfully chalenged.

[papau]

3. al-Zawahie was Amb to the Vatican and the Africa trip was to invite 4

governments in Africa to send folks to Baghdad for a visit. This is confirmed by everyone and was even mentioned by Wilson.

Also confirmed is the fact that the "al-Zawahie yellow cake letter" had his forged "signature". Indeed all the documents were forgeries.

And just on the basis of logic - "Niger's sale of uranium was implausible for the same reason Castro's sale of timeshares at Guantanamo was implausible. In both cases, foreign powers exerted exclusive physical control over the host country's territory. In Niger's case, the uranium mines and their output were under exclusive physical control of a joint venture among entities from France, Spain and Japan -- all US allies" -quoted from a Wash Post write up.

[alcibiades_mystery]

4. The holes are ridiculous

Whether he actually procured it is irrelevant. The implication (and that's all there is) is that he thought he could procure it undetected. Otherwise, why bother. Since it is impossible - as your point 4 even concedes - that this could have happened given the structure of the uranium industry in Niger, it is a laughable assertion that he was down there trying to do so, since reasonable people don't try to do something they know to be impossible. Oh, but he was not reasonable, you say? But that is contrary to the very claim of nuclear expertise that would supposedly explain the trip. Hitchens entire speculative claim (and there is nothing but speculation here for Hitchens, which I hope you're honest enough to admit) is based on Zawahie's nuclear expertise, yet we're supposed to believe that the expert in the uranium trade thought he could procure uranium outside the auspices of the French companies, through various government officials in Niger, for example? That he was merely "sounding out" the situation on the ground, a situation well-known to anybody with even passing knowledge of the uranium industry, a situation that could be adequately sounded out by reading public industry research? It's ludicrous. Stretches of speculative imagination this wide do nothing but expose a fantasy or desitre beneath them, in this case, Hitchens' desire to justify this disastrous war. You also say Zawahie had no good reason for going to Niger. For my part, I try to be a critical reader, and not fall prey to Hitchens' speculations so readily. If Hitchens (or anyone, for that matter) bothered explaining the stated reason (it was an official trip, after all), one could evaluate this claim. Otherwise, it is nothing but Mr. Hitchens' partisan assertion. Previous posters on this thread have done a fine job showing up the holes in Hitchens' argument on just this point. And, as it stands, Hitchens' dishonesty is only compounded by the fact that he doesn't even bother presenting these alternative reasons for the trip - probably because each of them is as plausible - even more plausible - than his own speculation. As assertions go, it is itself a house of cards, as if the best way for Mr. Hussein to begin the process of procuring uranium would be to openly send somebody with a nuclear background on an official trip to Niger, whatever the pretenses!

The article is thoroughly unimportant, except as a measure of the desperation felt by warmongers like Hitchens as their previous propaganda is debunked point by point. As it stands, the article presents nothing substantive; it is pure speculation, and markedly incoherent speculation at that. Hitchens turns out to be a rather poor fiction writer, since even mediocre fiction writers manage to suspend disbelief by having their various plots cohere internally. Hitchens' article fails on even that point, as do your defenses of it.

[Gabi Hayes]

5. hey, chomper....lemme ask you two questions

1) did Hitchens mention the other US officials who came up with the same analysis as Wilson? did he vilify them....smear them the same way he did Wilson?

2) since you're the one who started that flamebaiter last night, then didn't bother to defend your assertions, other than to make the irrelevant assertion on the timing of the visit by the Iraqi envoy, why are you at DU at all?

[Kingshakabobo]

6. Looks like you have bitten off more than you can chew/chomp.

Will this be a hit and run?