Alright- there are only 30+ comments on Step #5, but it appears we have some general consensus. If not, it can be edited, but I am going to try to keep the ball moving forward. Again, A rehash of what is generally agreed upon:
1.) Valerie Plame worked for the CIA, was stationed in Washington at the time of her outing, and previously had been a covert agent.
2.) Joseph Wilson, husband of Valerie Plame and former ambassador to Iraq, was sent by the CIA to investigate claims that Saddam Hussein was interested in/trying to buy uranium (ignore precisely what he was doing in Niger for now- we can get to that later).3.) Valerie Plame recommended her husband to CIA authorities for the job, as he had extensive contacts in Africa from his numerous years of previous service.
4.) Joseph Wilson, either on his own volition, or at the behest of the NY Times, wrote an editorial critical of the Bush administration and many claims made by the Bush administration and was quoted widely in major media outlets prior to the ‘outing’ of his wife.
5.) After 9/11, the administration advanced the argument that it was no longer acceptable to allow Saddam Hussein to remain in power, as he had used chem/bio weapons in the past, it was believed (or at least asserted) that he had stockpiles of weapons, he seemed intent on obtaining WMD, etc. Thus, a main argument used to sell the necessity of the war in Iraq was that he should no longer be allowed to possess WMD. This was not the only argument for removing Hussein from power, but it WAS PERCEIVED BY MANY AS the focal argument for galvanizing support within the general American public *AND WITH THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY* (updated).
Time for step #6:
6.) On 28 January 2003, President Bush, stated the following during the annual State of the Union address:
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.
That paragraph was one of 18 paragraphs in the speech that focussed on the perceived threat of Saddam Hussein and WMD, and the veracity of the bolded words quickly became known as the “Sixteen Words” in an ensuing media firestorm. The reference to aluminum tubes also came under scrutiny shortly after the speech.
Again, this is a long one, but it is necessary. Answer only “Yes” if you believe that the statement is accurate, or “NO’ if you find it is inaccurate. If you believe it is inaccurate, please state why.
Keith
Yes.
Mason
Yes
Nikki
Yes
SamAm
Yes.
Phil Smith
Yes
ryu-oh
Yes.
aaron pacy
Yes.
hilzoy
Yes
p.lukasiak
Yes
(notwithstanding previous objections with regard to points 2-4, and wondering why a specific sentence was “bolded”…but I’m sure we’ll find out soon enough :) )
John S
Yes
Jake S,
Yes.
MikeAdamson
Yes
Johno
Yes.
John Cole
Because the specific sentence that is bolded is why Jospeh Wilson wrote his editorial 5 months later…
p.lukasiak
(we could probably simplify matters if you just asked me and Darrell if we agree on stuff!) :)
Demdude
Yes.
Ian
Yes
over it
Yes.
Blue Neponset
Yes
Tony Alva
Yes
David Janes
Yes. Anyone see “President Black Bush” on Dave Chappelle :-)
Andrew J. Lazarus
Yes, 100 percent.
Mr Furious
Yes.
demimondian
Yes.
BinkyBoy
Yes, but your explanation is wrong. The aluminum tubes were debunked when Condi tried to use them prior to the speech in question. There were actual photographs provided by the UN that showed they were unusable for most purposes, they were so old and so thin.
Defense Guy
If we are simply agreeing that he said that in his speech, and that the 16 words became a major focal point of the press and some of the public, then…
Yes.
Hard to argue with the transcript after all.
p.lukasiak
Because the specific sentence that is bolded is why Jospeh Wilson wrote his editorial 5 months later…
um, john, you know how much I hate to contradict you, but….
1) Wilson does not mention the SOTU in his NY Times article
2) Wilson’s piece was about the debunking of the claim that Niger had SOLD yellowcake to Iraq, the quote only refers to Iraq’s supposed SEEKING TO BUY yellowcake/uranium.
3) at the time Wilson published his piece July 6, 2003), there was considerable controversy over the decision (announced on June 20, 2003) of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence to look into the way that intelligence had been handled by the administration. The White House did not want an investigation and there were questions about how much access to information that the SSCI would have. (and IMHO Wilson’s piece was motivated by his opinion that a full investigation was necessary.)
Bottom line… Wilson’s piece was not about Bush’s statement made in the SOTU five months earlier — it was about his perception that the intelligence had been skewed to fit the policy. (Hell, at the point Wilson wrote the piece, he still expected WMDs or precursors or something to be found in Iraq to justify all the WMD claims made by Bush and his subordinates.)
The “sixteen words” were a victim of the uproar created by Wilson’s NY Times piece. But (and this is why I objected to you ignoring the reason for Wilson’s trip in point #2) Wilson’s piece wasn’t about Saddam’s aspirations, or intentions — it was about Wilson’s debunking of the claim that Niger sold uranium to Iraq.
John Cole
And the reason Wilson’s piece was given such crucial play in the debate was the media firestorm following the SOTU address.
Yes, Wilson was addressing the specific forgeries and the sale of uranium in Niger, but this was born out of a larger narrative about the British intelligence re: Saddam and Africa.
Defense Guy
Can you point out where someone claimed that the uranium was sold rather than just sought? I remember the claim that Saddam was seeking it, just no the one where it had been actually sold. Thanks.
John Cole
From the Wilson piece:
You can correct me all you want, but be right…
jami
No. The other 18 paragraphs turned out to be incorrect as well. Saddam was not a gathering or imminent threat, and I won’t let you imply he was without saying something.
You should either leave out the “other 18 paragraphs” or point out how exactly you believe he was right in those other 18 paragraphs. Considering that there were no WMD, I’m thinkin’ he mostly was not right.
Anderson
Yes.
Tim F
Yes
jami, your answer would be ‘yes with an asterisk.’ The veracity of the other 17 paragraphs is beyond the scope of John’s question.
John Cole
Jami- Your opinion that he was not a threat does not discount that this was but one of 18 paragraphs the President stated during the SOTU that he was a threat.
Get a grip.
Defense Guy
My question of a source for
was for p.lukasiak, although I am not sure if John’s comment under mine was intended for me.
Should have been more clear.
p.lukasiak
Can you point out where someone claimed that the uranium was sold rather than just sought? I remember the claim that Saddam was seeking it, just no the one where it had been actually sold. Thanks.
the documents that we now know were forgeries were an agreement of sale for yellowcake. (To be honest, I’m too lazy to find out if anyone in the Bush administration ever said that Iraq bought yellowcake…but I don’t consider that germaine.)
***********************
And the reason Wilson’s piece was given such crucial play in the debate was the media firestorm following the SOTU address.
John, SOTU happened in January. Wilson’s piece was published in July. In the interim, UNMOVIC made it clear that virtually everything that the US was claiming about Saddam’s WMD stockpiles and programs was bullsh*t, IAEA had flat out said that the Niger/yellowcake documents were forgeries, and the Coalition of the Willing had invaded and occupied Iraq and was coming up with nada with regard to WMDs.
In other words, get real. Wilson’s piece wasn’t about rebutting Bush’s sixteen words in the SOTU.
(and BTW, I don’t recall any “media firestorm following the SOTU address”…unless you are talking about Buzzflash, Commondreams.org, and similar lefty news sites)
Yes, Wilson was addressing the specific forgeries and the sale of uranium in Niger, but this was born out of a larger narrative about the British intelligence re: Saddam and Africa.
I agree.
Emperor Larry Bernard
So long as the “16 words” are properly attributed to british intell, quoted by the president, and not CIA intel or alleged us intell then yes
Steve
Yes.
The issue of whether Wilson’s editorial relates to the bolded sentence, or not, is one of those issues on which I doubt both sides will end up agreeing. One side says that there was not enough evidence to conclude that Saddam had sought uranium from Africa, Tenet was right to say that these sixteen words never should have appeared in the speech, and so forth. The other side focuses on the opening clause “the British government has learned” and maintains that makes the sentence literally true, in other words, the British government actually HAD learned or concluded that Saddam had sought uranium from Africa, even if they were totally wrong about that, and regardless of whether the US had any independent intelligence to justify that belief.
So if you’re in the first camp, you believe that Wilson was demonstrating one of the many ways in which the Saddam-Africa connection was not justified by the intelligence. If you’re in the second camp, you believe that Wilson’s statements had nothing to do with what the British had learned, and that Wilson only spoke to whether a transaction had OCCURRED (as opposed to whether it had been sought) and therefore Wilson has nothing to do with the SOTU. Good luck reconciling these two positions.
Anyway, the answer is yes.
Kirk Spencer
Yes (*)
* – Is the final sentence (about aluminum tubes) relevant or necessary in regard to Wilson/Plame/etc? I’d argue no, but not so much as to change my answer to the whole.
jami
sorry for the multi-posts. they wouldn’t go through.
you get a grip. what was in the other 18 paragraphs, if they’re so germane to this discussion, or are you only pretending to present a clear and complete picture?
John Cole
Jami- It is not about whether he was right or not, it is about whether or not those 18 paragraphs were stated or not and whether or not the highlighted portion was one of those 18.
Good gravy.
p.lukasiak
You can correct me all you want, but be right…
John
…SOTU in January, before the invasion
…Wilson NY Times piece in July, well after the invasion
do the math.
***************
defenseguy…
My question of a source for …it was about Wilson’s debunking of the claim that Niger sold uranium to Iraq.
was for p.lukasiak,
This may sound rather snide, but…
The source is the Wilson piece published by the NY Times on July 6, 2003. If you haven’t read it, do so.
And insofar as I’ve already linked to it, and you (apparently) haven’t bothered to read the primary text which is the basis of this discussion, I’m not going to waste the 20 seconds it will take me to find the link once more….
John Cole
jami- Follow the god damn hyperlink.
jami
fuck you, jc. you’re supposed to be one of the smart ones. you can’t do this without insults and swearing, neither will i.
Pelikan
Yes
Defense Guy
Sorry to be breaking the rule John.
The timing on this one is going to be critical, so when did we get a copy of this document?
Why don’t you consider it germaine? If the central point of the argument that Wilson wrote the article to debunk the claim made by the administration that it was sold, cannot be backed up by an actual claim made by the administration, then where exactly are we? In other words, how can you debunk a claim if it was never made?
I suppose we all have our lazy moments, but in this case how can you make this claim if you just don’t have anything to back it up with?
John Cole
Pauyl- Yes, the Wilson piece was after the SOT, which is why Wilson referred back to the PRESIDENT SPEAKING IN JANUARY.
The sixteen words were a media circus, such that if you google ‘sixteen words,’ it is a bit amusing what you come up with.
Wilson’s claims RE: the Niger sale are inexorably tied to the ‘sixteen words,’ as this all came to a head when WMD were not found and reviews of intelligence were being publicly conducted. They are related- very much so, in fact.
Christie S.
Yes
neil
Yes, but I move to strike ‘that paragraph was one of 18’ on grounds that it is irrelevant to the item.
John Cole
Jami- I am smart enought o be able to answer a yes or no question without throwing in questions of the overall veracity. So, if you wantt o play along, one more time.
Was that one paragraph part of 18 paragraphs the President stated in the SOTU. yes or no. This has nothing to do with whether it was accurate or not.
And btw- you only need to post things once. I have now deleted 9 repeat comments.
Defense Guy
p.lukasiak
Generally speaking, I have no problem with snide.
I linked it in another thread, I have read it. I particulary like the parts about how ‘hard it would be’ to sell the Uranium. Many crimes are hard to accomplish, that doesn’t mean they don’t get done.
I am not sure what this has to do with anything. I read the article, but my question has nothing to do with that article. My question is where is the claim made by the administration that Niger sold Uranium to Iraq?
Darrell
Yes
jcricket
Yes
(and John – to be fair to Jami, your hosting site/MT installation does seem to have an unusually high “post appears to have failed when it really posted” rate).
p.lukasiak
Why don’t you consider it germaine? If the central point of the argument that Wilson wrote the article to debunk the claim made by the administration that it was sold, cannot be backed up by an actual claim made by the administration, then where exactly are we? In other words, how can you debunk a claim if it was never made?
because I think that Wilson’s real point was that the administration ignored evidence that proved/suggested/indicated that its various conclusions were wrong.
*****************
Possible CORRECTION…
Somewhere, I may have said that Wilson’s column did not mention Bush’s SOTU.
That’s wrong. Wilson’s column includes the sentence…
Then, in January, President Bush, citing the British dossier, repeated the charges about Iraqi efforts to buy uranium from Africa.
this is an obvious reference to the 2003 SOTU.
waddyaknow
Yes
Tim F
Let’s fire up another overflow thread for stuff like this Paul and Def Guy thing.
John Cole
jCricket- I already have a new server, a new site redesign, and a new engine (wordpress) up and running, just waiting to be tweaked so we can make the move sometime this week.
Joel
Yes.
Defense Guy
But isn’t there a level of dishonesty in this act? Wilsons real point is spelled out in the article, and you are ‘reading between the lines’, while I am asking simply for a level of proof for your claims. Aren’t you really just saying that due to your agreement that the Bush administration acts in dishonest ways that this is enough evidence to indicate that the claim was made, even if it wasn’t?
I don’t mean to pound this issue into the ground, but I always appreciate and am more willing to listen to facts than to gut feelings. I suspect you are the same, as are most people.
mac Buckets
Yes.
#7: There IS no #7!
W.B. Reeves
Yes but I do wonder why it’s necessary to cite it as one of 18 paragraphs. We already know it is part of a larger speech.
Jami,
Evidently you haven’t spent much time here or you wouldn’t characterize the people on this thread as dittoheads. One “God damn” borne of frustration hardly justifies a “fuck you” in response. Particularly since John was cursing the link, not you. If you’re not interested in finding area’s of agreement with people you differ from politically, you probably shouldn’t be participating.
Andrei
In an effort to try and sidetrack things, and for Darrell’s sake, I offer this link:
http://www.tpmcafe.com/story/2005/7/13/04720/9340
Maybe Mr. Cole would care to comment on it and write it up?
mac Buckets
Are embedded links really that hard, Andrei?
eileen from OH
Yes.
eileen from OH
Darrell
Yes Andrei, such a balanced and factual article. I can see why you’re so drawn to it with ‘insights’ like these:
Here are the facts. Bush’s lies have resulted in the deaths of almost 1800 American soldiers and the mutilation of 12,000.
“Bush lied, people died”, right?
JG
Would you prefer ‘Bush bullshitted and people died’?
JG
Forgot the link
Andrei
Yes Mac… embedded links are SOOOO hard. That and I’m way to lazy today to care making the buttons work in Mac Safari (they dont) or typing out long hand the anchor link itself.
Is that all you really care about?
Jeff Medcalf
Yes.
Why can’t people read the rules? Maybe it would help if there were a general discussion thread for related topics that don’t specifically address objections to the proposed point, and only JC allowed to post rebuttals in the voting post?
JG
http://www.slate.com/id/2114268/
Lets try again
Jackmormon
Mostly yes, but I seem to remember that the aluminum tubes had been getting some bad press before the SOTU.