posted July 29, 2006 12:49 PM            

Oddly, this was never an issue but rather ginned up by those who had attempted to shelter and support the butcher, Saddam Hussein from his just deserves.

16 words" delivered by President Bush in a State of the Union address...and every single word was true...in every respect. Yet, leftists went apesh!t and accused the President of lying to lead America into war with Iraq...also not true.

The Butler Report...that's Lord Butler, was an investigation of the matter which concluded the British government had indeed learned Saddam had sought uranium from Africa and the British government statement was "well founded" as was the President's.

No lie by Bush, merely repeating to the nation what had been passed on to American intelligence by the British...and what they passed on was true.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

Every lie of lying leftists is eventually exposed. One of the reasons the American people don't trust the lying left or their mouthpieces in the Congress and in the lying leftist press.

Thus, another lie of the lying left has also been exposed for the utter lying trash it was. The lying Joe Wilson and his wife Valerie were not persecuted by the Bush administration. The Bush administration told the exact truth about the Wilsons.

Further, no laws were broken by the Bush administration when they exposed Joe Wilson for the liar he is nor was it any crime when it came out that Valerie Wilson was a CIA employee.

A years long investigation by a federal prosecutor has failed to find any evidence of wrongdoing in this matter...except for filing a perjury charge against Scooter Libby...a side issue having nothing whatsoever to do with the original thrust of the federal investigation into the matter.

The lying left never apologizes for their lies when they're exposed; they just move on to even bigger lies.

Consider this a three-fer. Three lies of the lying left exposed at one fell swoop.

If lying leftists had an ounce of character, they would apologize to the President, to Karl Rove and to the American people for the lies they've told in this matter.

Don't anyone hold their breath waiting for this to happen. The lying left is totally without character and without honor.

Case Closed
The truth about the Iraqi-Niger "yellowcake" nexus.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Tuesday, July 25, 2006, at 12:46 PM ET

Now that Joseph and Valerie Wilson's fantasies of having been persecuted by high officials in the administration have been so thoroughly dispelled by Robert Novak (and now that it seems the prosecutor has determined that there was no breach of the relevant laws to begin with), we may return to the more important original question. Was there good reason to suppose that Iraqi envoys visited Niger in search of "yellowcake" uranium ore?

In a series of columns, I have argued that the answer to this is "yes," and that British intelligence was right to inform Washington to that effect. Iraq—despite having yellowcake of its own—had bought the material from Niger as early as 1981 and had not at that time informed the International Atomic Energy Agency (weapons inspectors effectively stopped Iraq's domestic yellowcake production after 1991). On Oct. 31, 1998, Iraq announced the end of its cooperation with the U.N. inspectors, who were effectively barred from the country. A few days later, the U.N. Security Council condemned this move in Resolution 1205, dated Nov. 5, 1998. The following month, the Clinton administration ordered selective strikes in and around Baghdad. A few weeks after that—on Feb. 8, 1999, to be precise—an Iraqi delegation visited Niger. It was headed by the improbable figure of Saddam Hussein's ambassador to the Vatican. But the improbability becomes more intelligible when it is understood that this diplomat, Wissam al-Zahawie by name, was a very experienced Iraqi envoy for nuclear-related matters.

I shall quote here, with his permission, from a letter I have received from Ambassador Rolf Ekeus. Ambassador Ekeus, currently high commissioner for national minority questions for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, is a founder of the renowned Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, has been Sweden's envoy both to the United Nations and the United States, and won great acclaim for his effective defanging of Iraq when he was the first chairman of UNSCOM after the first Gulf War in 1992. (When it was proposed 10 years later that the U.N. inspectors be sent back to Iraq, Kofi Annan actually renominated Ekeus for the job but was overruled by France and Russia, who wanted the more conciliatory Hans Blix.) Ekeus writes to me as follows, having known Zahawie in a professional capacity and having read the posting, apparently from him, in Slate's "Fray":

One of my colleagues remembers Zahawie as Iraq's delegate to the IAEA General Conference during the years 1982-84. One item on the agenda was the diplomatic and political fall-out of Israel's destruction of the Osirak reactor (a centerpiece of Iraq's nuclear weapons ambitions). Zahawie in his response [to Slate] appears to confirm that he was Iraq's delegate, though not the Permanent delegate, to the IAEA (the General Conference) and therefore clearly not foreign to the nuclear issues, especially as he was the under-secretary of the foreign ministry selected by Baghdad to represent Iraq on the most sensitive issue, the question of Iraq's nuclear weapons ambitions. His participation as leader of the Iraqi delegation to the 1995 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference merely confirms his standing as Iraq's top negotiator on nuclear weapons issues. [italics mine]

He confirms that he was Iraq's ambassador to the Vatican, a not unimportant position given that all Iraq's [other] embassies in the West lacked senior or ambassadorial leadership and that all Western embassies in Iraq were closed. His modesty in this case is puzzling if you don't take into account that a resident ambassador in Rome was ideally placed to undertake discreet and sensitive missions, especially as he was fully plugged into the intricacies of nuclear-weapons diplomacy.

Zahawie furthermore confirms his trip to Niger. The question remains, why Iraq's top man on nuclear weapons diplomacy and negotiations would travel to Niger: with all respect, not the dream-place for a connoisseur of Mozart and Italian bel canto, though no longer of Wagner.

(Ambassador Ekeus' allusion in that last sentence is to Zahawie's affecting claim that he was posted to Rome in virtual semiretirement and mainly for the music. This is as credible as his claim, made to Hassan Fattah—then of Time magazine—that when he visited Niger he did not know that it exported yellowcake—which is famously just about the only thing that it does export.)

Let me now introduce a second corroborative witness, whose acknowledged expertise in the field is hardly less than that of Ekeus. Thérèse Delpech is the director for strategic studies at the French Atomic Energy Commission and also a senior research fellow at CERI, the Center for International Studies and Research, at Sciences-Po, the national political-science university in Paris. Until fairly recently, she was also a board member of the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission chaired by Hans Blix. She has since resigned from this body. According to a letter from her to me, at a meeting of the WMDC in Cairo in February 2005, Wissam Zahawie attended one closed session of the commission. Delpech:

asked the Chair [Blix] to get him out of the room in the following ten minutes if he wanted me to stay. This was done in writing (a note). Since this was not done, I left the room myself. The intervention of another member was then necessary to have him out at the coffee break. In my letter of resignation, I have indicated to Hans Blix that this incident was one of the three reasons for my resignation.

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

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

When I asked her on the telephone why she reacted so strongly to Zahawie's presence, Delpech told me that she had been the adviser to the French envoy to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty "extension conference" at the United Nations in New York in 1995 and had recognized Saddam's ambassador to the Vatican. She commented dryly that "the French ambassador to the Holy See does not go on official visits to West Africa." When I told her of Zahawie's claim that he didn't know Niger made and exported uranium yellowcake and described this claim as "unlikely to be true," she responded that " 'unlikely to be true' is a very British understatement."

To summarize, then: In February 1999 one of Saddam Hussein's chief nuclear goons paid a visit to Niger, but his identity was not noticed by Joseph Wilson, nor emphasized in his "report" to the CIA, nor mentioned at all in his later memoir. British intelligence picked up the news of the Zahawie visit from French and Italian sources and passed it on to Washington. Zahawie's denials of any background or knowledge, in respect of nuclear matters, are plainly laughable based on his past record, and he is still taken seriously enough as an expert on such matters to be invited (as part of a Jordanian delegation) to Hans Blix's commission on WMD. Two very senior and experienced diplomats in the field of WMDs and disarmament, both of them from countries by no means aligned with the Bush administration, have been kind enough to share with me their disquiet at his activities. What responsible American administration could possibly have viewed any of this with indifference?

The subsequent mysteriously forged documents claiming evidence of an actual deal made between Zahawie and Niger were circulated well after the first British report (and may have been intended to discredit it) and have been deemed irrelevant by two independent inquiries in London. The original British report carefully said that Saddam had "sought" uranium, not that he had acquired it. The possible significance of a later return visit—this time by a minister from Niger to Baghdad in 2001—has not as yet been clarified by the work of the Iraq Survey Group.

posted July 29, 2006 01:39 PM            

The lying left are so close to the left abyss they could move no futhrer left and remain on planet earth.

posted July 29, 2006 02:01 PM            

Perhaps they're taking the crash Karma course...or curse in this life....to balance the Karmic scales.

Of course, lying and treason aren't likely to earn anything but more Karma to work off.

posted July 29, 2006 02:10 PM              

we're headed for some big disasters..if they don't wake up soon..to what this will do..to all the World..
each person is responsible for themSelf..and their actions. ...

I'm heading out..See you in the Evening Hours...

posted July 29, 2006 04:50 PM            

Nice to see you judging people again. Love and Light to All, and all that.

Jwhop,

posted July 29, 2006 05:50 PM            

I notice you didn't want to weigh in and refute anything Hitchins had to say.

posted July 30, 2006 02:38 PM              

Profile: Wissam al-Zahawie
Positions that Wissam al-Zahawie has held:

* Iraqi ambassador to the Vatican

Wissam al-Zahawie actively participated in the following events:
February 1999

Wissam al-Zahawie, Iraq’s ambassador to the Vatican, sets off on a trip to several African countries as part of an effort to convince African heads of state to visit Iraq. Saddam Hussein hopes that these visits will help break the embargo on flights to Iraq, and undermine the UN sanctions regime. Zahawie’s first stop is Niger, where he meets with the country’s president, President Ibrahim Bare Mainassara, for one hour. Mainassara promises that he will visit Baghdad the following April (He is assasinated before he has an opportunity to do this). [Independent, 8/10/2003; New Yorker, 10/27/2003; Sunday Herald (Glasgow), 7/13/2003; Time, 10/2/2003 Sources: Wissam al-Zahawie, Charles O. Cecil] In early 2002, the Italian military intelligence service, SISMI, will allege in a report (see February 5, 2002) sent to the US that the motive behind the visit is to discuss the future purchase of uranium oxide, also known as “yellowcake” (see October 15, 2001). [New Yorker, 10/27/2003 Sources: Wissam al-Zahawie, Unnamed US intelligence sources] However, no one at this time suggests that the trip’s motives have anything to do with acquiring uranium. Zahawie’s trip is reported in the local newspaper as well as by a French news agency. The US and British governments are aware of the trip and show no concern about Niger, which is actively seeking economic assistance from the United States. [New Yorker, 10/27/2003 Sources: Wissam al-Zahawie, Charles O. Cecil]

Entity Tags: Ibrahim Bare Mainassara, Wissam al-Zahawie
October 15, 2001

SISMI, Italy’s intelligence service, provides a CIA field agent in Rome with some papers documenting an alleged uranium deal between Iraq and Niger. The agent, who is not permitted to duplicate the papers, writes a summary of them and sends the report to Langley. [La Repubblica (Rome), 11/11/2005; New Yorker, 10/27/2003; Knight Ridder, 11/4/2005]
The allegations - The report includes four allegations:
bullet The report states that Iraq first communicated its interest in purchasing uranium from Niger at least as early as 1999. [US Congress, 7/7/2004] As blogger ERiposte will conclude through his careful analysis at TheLeftCoaster.Org [ERiposte, 10/31/2005] none of the documents that are later provided to the US as the basis for this allegation consist of actual proof of uranium negotiations in 1999. Two of the source documents for this allegation do mention a 1999 visit by Wissam Al-Zahawi to Niger; however no evidence has ever surfaced suggesting that there were any discussions about uranium during that visit (see February 1999). The first document (possibly authentic) is a letter, dated February 1, 1999, from the Niger embassy in Rome to Adamou Chekou, the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Niger, announcing Zahawie’s trip. It does not mention uranium. (Note that the SISMI report does not mention Al-Zahawi’s trip, it only states that uranium negotations between the two countries began by at least 1999.) The second document is a letter dated July 30, 1999 from the Niger Ministry of Foreign Affairs to his ambassador in Rome requesting that he contact Zahawie, concerning an agreement signed June 28, 2000 to sell uranium to Iraq. The letter is an obvious forgery because it refers to an alleged event that is described as taking place 11 months later. [Unknown, n.d.]
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=wissam_al-zahawie

posted July 30, 2006 02:41 PM              

A former Iraqi official replies.
By Geoffrey Andersen

The Fray has received a curious artifact responding belatedly to Christopher Hitchens' April 10 article, "Wowie Zahawie." The author of the post purports to be former Iraqi official Wissam al-Zahawie, whose activities in the 1990s form a basis for Hitchens' charge that Iraq was actively seeking to procure uranium from Niger after the first Gulf War. Though we cannot verify the identity of a Fray post's author, our crack team of forensic literary critics believes that its provenance is probably legitimate. (Click here for the reasons we believe the post to be genuine.)

Sorry everyone, but I think it is time to respond to Hitch-Hitch Hitchens who really got himself all hitched- up in knots trying to prove that "Wowie Zahawie" did go uranium shopping in Niger. Better late than never.

Hitchens' competence in concocting fictitious encounters, events and information are truly a source of wonder. I, the "man named Wissam al-Zahawie" am quite amazed to discover that I had told Rolf Ekeus, when I greeted him in Baghdad, that, now that he had "come to take away our assets" we could no longer be friends. Rolf Ekeus is an honourable man and our friendship, such as it was, continued during his chairmanship of the UN commission and we continued to have friendly lunches in New York when I attended UN meetings there. If the details of that greeting in Baghdad are attributable to Ekeus himself, then I am sure that he must have heard that comment from some other official directly involved in the question of armaments who considered weapons as an "asset": I was only involved in the political aspects of the UN operation.

Although I had attended conferences of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna in the early 1980s when the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear reactor was on the agenda, I was never "the Iraqi representative" to the Agency, nor was I "Iraq's senior public envoy for nuclear matters", I was only a member of the delegations to those meetings.

I am astounded at finding out that I was "in the room" during Joe Wilson's last meeting with Saddam Hussein. I have not read Wilson's book, but I'm sure that the under-secretary for foreign affairs who according to Hitchens, quoting Wilson, was present was not myself but Nizar Hamdoon. Although I was the senior under-secretary at the Foreign Ministry, there were four of us at the time, I was in charge of the departments dealing with international organizations and conferences. Hamdoon looked after bilateral affairs with western countries, the really sensitive relations entrusted only to senior officials who are Ba'ath party members. I was never a member.

In 1995, I did lead the Iraqi delegation, not to a "UN special session", but to a Conference on the Review and Extension of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. My statements were again, purely political; I spoke about the militarist American policies over the decades. I did not "speak heatedly about the urgent need to counterbalance Israel's nuclear capacity", but about the urgent need for the Americans not to obstruct UN calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I am annexing my statements at that conference to prove my point.

I was appointed to the Vatican not in 1997, as Hitchens writes, but in 1986 as non-resident ambassador; and was appointed as the first Iraqi resident ambassador to the Vatican in 1994 after Pope Paul-John II had asked deputy prime-minister Tariq Aziz, on one of his official visits to the Vatican, why it is that Iraq had not appointed a resident ambassador. In fact, I was already retired from the service in 1993 but the Foreign Ministry had failed to inform the Vatican of the termination of my appointment, so I was recruited back into the service. I was appointed to the Vatican in the first place, not because it was a "very important and sensitive post" but exactly because it was nothing of the kind. The Ba'ath regime in Baghdad would never have appointed a non-Ba'athist as an ambassador to any important and sensitive post. The Vatican was deemed appropriate for me because it had no political, economic or military activities in which "sensitive" issues could be involved.

The allegation that I was a man much given to anti-Jewish tirades is an outrageous lie. I did denounce Zionism and Israel's Zionist policies, myths and fabrications whenever and wherever possible. To depict such criticism as being anti-Jewish is a libelous charge. Of course this is part of a vigorous Zionist campaign to equate Judaism with Zionism. Any anti-Zionist or anti-Israel criticism is to be banned as anti-Semitism. In my lifetime, I've had the privilege, and the honour, of having had many talks with the likes of Prof. Israel Shahak, Rabbi Elmer Berger, Alfred M. Lilienthal and Prof. Norton Mezvinsky, not to mention rabbis from the ultra-Orthodox Neturei Karta, among others, to know that there are many outstanding and venerable Jews who are more out-spoken and passionate in their denunciation and condemnation of Zionism than the most extreme Arab and Palestinian; as, in fact, there are many gentiles who could out-do Herzl himself in their fervent defense of Zionism.

In addition to the above-mentioned names, the writings of the likes of Ahad Ha'am, Judah Magnes, Hannah Arendt, Morris Ernst and Moshe Menuhin; among the living writers we have Uri Avnery, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Lenni Brenner, John Rose, Simcha Flapan, Yehoshafat Harkabi, and still many others who provide ample evidence of the difference between being a Jew and becoming a Zionist. Four other writers, Prof. Avi Shlaim of Oxford University, author of The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab world, and the article, Why Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews, (The International Herald Tribune, 4 February 2005), Naeim Giladi, author of Ben-Gurion's Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews, Nissim Rejwan author of The Jews of Iraq and the poet Amira Hess are all Jews of Iraqi origin. Giladi and Rejwan, like Menuhin and Shahak before them, were themselves former Zionists who turned vehemently anti-Zionist. Another book recently published, bears the title, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews by Alan Hart (World Focus Publishing, Kent, England). He himself must be Jewish, for no Gentile would have the courage to write such a book for fear of being denounced as an anti-Semite or a Neo-Nazi, whereas Jewish critics of Zionism and Israel are merely dismissed as madmen (as Shahak was described) or as "self-hating Jews."

As for that ridiculous allegation that I hold "a standing ticket for Wagner performances at Bayreuth", I can only say that I wish I were able to afford such a luxury. In fact, I have been to Bayreuth only once, courtesy of the German Government, when Germany and Iraq were both members of the UN Security Council in 1975 and the German representative, Ambassador von Wechmar, invited a number of the other ambassadors interested in classical music to the festivals in Munich and Bayreuth. But Hitchens, having stated that I am "a man much given to anti-Jewish tirades", thought he would substantiate that charge by alleging that I am a regular visitor to Bayreuth, "actually as a fan of Das Rheingold and Gotterdammrung." Just in case the reader still didn't quite get the hint that I am anti-Semitic, Hitler is brought into the picture as supposedly another admirer of those operas too, although he "secretly preferred sickly kitsch like Franz Lehar." And just to set the record straight, I have never attended a performance of the full cycle of the Ring operas. In over twenty years of opera attendance, I've heard a single performance of Walkure in London, a Siegfried in New York and a Gotterdammerrung in Vienna, and not a single live performance of Rheingold. What we heard on my only visit to Bayreuth were Tristan, Parsifal and Die Meistersinger, none of which could by any stretch of imagination be interpreted as reflecting Wagner's anti-Semitism. I would like to assure that man Hitchens that I'm actually a fan of Bach, Mozart, the Italian be canto opera composers; and Wagner comes way down the list of other German, French or Russian composers whose works I enjoy.

And what proof does Hitchens have to substantiate his other ludicrous fabrications? He offers the drivel I mention above as "the plain set of established facts in my first three paragraphs above", which according to Hitchens reveal "such an amazingly sinister pattern" that "no responsible American administration could have overlooked".

Although my familiarity with Baathist publications is far from encyclopedic, I have never come across what Hitchens states as the "declared ambition to equip the technicians referred to openly in the Baathist press as "nuclear mujahideen". I very much doubt that there was such an open declaration.

Hitchens further alleges that "the veteran diplomat has spent the eight months since President Bush's speech trying to set the record straight and clear his name." The facts are that I had given only one interview to Raymond Whitaker of the Independent on Sunday when he told me that Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, was still insisting that the British government had other document/ documents concerning the Niger uranium deal. That allegation, new to me, prompted me to give the interview which appeared in the August 10, 2003 issue of the weekly. My only other "exclusive" interview was with Time magazine because the writer, Hassan Fattah, is a personal friend and I did not want to refuse his request. Meanwhile I had twice declined offers from the BBC to appear on their Panorama programme, (once in Amman and again in London) as I had also declined requests to appear on their Newsnight and Hard Talk programmes. That is hardly spending "eight months trying to clear" my name. There certainly is no reason for me to try to "clear my name" anyway.

If I had gone to Niger to discuss, or to sign an agreement on the purchase of uranium, there is nothing, especially since the fall of the Baath regime, to prevent me from saying so. It constitutes no crime for which I could be indicted, and it could certainly have put me in the good books of the Americans, the British and the Italians who were involved in the story. I had offered, since that Independent on Sunday interview of 10 August 2003, my readiness to meet with any official from any one of the countries mentioned and explain and answer any enquiries about my mission to Niger. I thought that they would really be interested to find out the truth behind the forgeries—if they really believed that they were misled by forgeries and incompetent intelligence services. I wanted those governments to know that I was not interested in a media campaign to challenge their allegations. No official ever approached me nor any of the governments showed any interest in my offers of cooperation. That can only mean that they already knew all that was there to know about the truth behind the forgeries.

So, in conclusion, I have no reason whatever to tell other than the truth about my visit to Niger; nor can I see any reason why the Americans or the British would try to hide the "genuine document" concocted by Hitchens' imagination, which, in fact, they seemed to need so desperately as conclusive evidence of the existence of Saddam's nuclear programme.
http://www.slate.com/id/2143704/nav/tap2/

posted July 30, 2006 02:47 PM              

************

Uranium from Niger. Although the NIE did not include uranium acquisition in the list of elements bolstering its conclusion about reconstitution, it did note that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" from Africa. 58 This statement was based largely on reporting from a foreign government intelligence service that Niger planned to send up to 500 tons of yellowcake uranium to Iraq. 59 The status of the arrangement was unclear, however, at the time of the coordination of the Estimate and the NIE therefore noted that the Intelligence Community could not confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring the uranium. 60 Iraq's alleged pursuit of uranium from Africa was thus not included among the NIE's Key Judgments. 61 For reasons discussed at length below, several months after the NIE, the reporting that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger was judged to be based on forged documents and was recalled. 62

Nuclear Weapons Finding 4

The Intelligence Community failed to authenticate in a timely fashion transparently forged documents purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger.

posted July 30, 2006 03:24 PM            

The President did not say, nor did the British say that Saddam/Iraq had purchased yellow cake from Niger...or that any deal had been concluded to ship yellow cake/uranium to Iraq by Niger or any other African nation.

Note....Bush said Saddam had recently sought uranium from Africa...a horse of a different color.

The forged purchase order came to light long after the lying Joe Wilson returned and made his report...and could not possibly have had any influence on his report to the CIA...since he had never so much as seen or even heard of it at that time.

The people involved with the IAEA know very well who the Iraqi Ambassador to the Vatican was and also knew his background as being involved in Iraq's nuclear weapons program very well.

Sounds like some leftist ass covering to me...in light of the statements by IAEA officials who were in a position to know.

posted July 30, 2006 04:41 PM            

Doesn't change anything though since Bush never claimed...nor did the British that Saddam actually bought or received any uranium or yellow cake from Africa or Niger.

As I understood the statement from the Nigerian minister, Iraq wanted to discuss trade with Niger....and the only export of note from Niger is yellow cake/uranium.

posted July 30, 2006 05:20 PM              

*****

why on earth would saddam send a non baathist vatican ambassador to niger asking for uranium when france controls nigers uranium? isnt it france youve been blaming for helping iraq circumvent its import/export restrictions?

quote:

---

Iraq wanted to discuss trade with Niger....and the only export of note from Niger is yellow cake/uranium.--jwhop

---

the only export of note from iraq is oil.....if youre going to leap to conclusions why not simply jump to the conclusion that "discussing trade" means selling oil to niger??

i guess it wouldnt have scared anyone if junior had announced this to the u.s. people before invading iraq...

"the british government has learned that saddam hussein recently sought to sell significant quantities of oil to africa...."

posted August 01, 2006 01:33 AM            

The article you posted seems to question his identity and, I believe cast doubt that he is the member of Saddam's former regime who was heavily involved in Saddam nuclear weapons program.

Christopher Hitchins has answered this question in an article...which follows.

No one on earth could call Hitchins a neo-con. Hitchins is a lifelong socialist...but one who at least has some common sense and perspective.

Into the Fray
Christopher Hitchens responds to a former Iraqi official's missive.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, June 19, 2006, at 5:16 PM ET

How nice to have tempted such a distinguished former servant of Saddam Hussein's out of his hidy-hole (see the "Fraywatch" of June 14). I choose to assume that this is indeed the real Wissam al-Zahawie, since there would be no point in anyone claiming to be him unless they actually were him, and since his rhetoric is so characteristic. My understanding has been that he now lives in Jordan and advises some royal Jordanians. The Fray does not ask its correspondents for an address, but we know this posting originated in Amsterdam, which is well within the realm of the probable.

Well, then, Wissam, my new correspondent, thank you first of all for writing. Thank you also for confirming that you represented Iraq at various meetings of the International Atomic Energy Authority and at various U.N. meetings that had to do with nuclear matters. (As to the specific roles that you played on those occasions, you can believe me when I say that I have caused many questions to be asked and have found the IAEA to be a difficult bureaucracy to deal with. But rest assured that I shall keep trying.) My first question arises naturally from your admission. Do you still claim, with even this modest background in nuclear diplomacy, that you told the truth to Hassan Fattah of Time when you claimed not to know that Niger even produced uranium yellowcake?

Until you say yes or no to this and stop dancing about and trying to impersonate an Iraqi version of a suave James Bond clubman, everything else is moot. You may spare me your deep reading in (or at least your ostentatiously extensive citation of) Jewish anti-Zionist polemic. I have read all that myself—and even written some of it—and was a personal friend of Israel Shahak. The propaganda of the government you served was something rather dissimilar: It railed against Jews as Jews and—when it went beyond propaganda—openly financed the suicide-murderers who murdered Jews, Israeli Arabs, and Palestinians. I feel quite tainted even discussing this question with someone who worked for the Baathist gangsters who fleeced and slaughtered the Iraqi people.

Your assertion—true as far as I know—that you were not yourself a Baathist makes this worse rather than better. To have accepted several senior paid positions when—as you say—you might have avoided them makes your current suavity into something rather disgusting and opportunist. As for the "nuclear mujahideen," perhaps you were not paying attention when the Iraqi News Agency reported a meeting between Saddam Hussein and Dr. Fahhel Muslim Al-Janabi, chairman of Iraq's Nuclear Energy Authority, in which Saddam addressed his scientists as "warriors" and Al-Janabi responded by saying: "As time goes on, your sons the Mujahideen become more determined and energetic, not only to overcome difficulties, but also to invent new and more advanced ways of accomplishing their work."

In any conflict of evidence between you and Ambassador Rolf Ekeus, a distinguished Swedish socialist and venerated international civil servant, there cannot be an honest person in the world who would even split the difference, let alone take your word over his. I do not propose myself as Ekeus' spokesman, but I wonder if you would ever consent to appear on a platform where both of you might be questioned by an independent chairman? I can probably manage to pass on your acceptance if you choose to take me up on it. Meanwhile, it's degrading to mention you even in the same breath as the man who helped disarm your fascist boss after the destruction of Kuwaiti statehood had been reversed in 1991.

If you now want to say that Joseph Wilson can't be relied upon even to tell the difference between you and the well-known Nizar Hamdoon, then you are taking a stand upon much firmer ground. (Except that you oddly rely on his account, rather than yours, to say that you don't recall the last meeting between Saddam and a U.S. ambassador. Have you no memory or diary of your own?) You are also wise to have avoided reading his ludicrous book. Wilson is one of the great clowns of our time, and proves it every day. By the way, he has recently spoken highly of you as "a world-class opera singer" who "went to the Vatican as his last post so that he could be near the great European opera houses in Rome." (See Craig Unger's piece in the July 2006 Vanity Fair.) If you think he doesn't know you well enough even to know your face, let alone to discuss your operatic accomplishments, then complain to him, not to me. I would love to be the one who put you two (back?) in touch. I certainly never said that you were actually an opera singer, though there's something minor-key operatic about your long moans and sobs of self-pity on the Wagner question. I took care to say that a liking for Wagner—which I share—is no condemnation.

If you really insist, I shall try to believe you when you say that your reappointment to the Iraqi Embassy at the Vatican was the result of a sentimental chat between his holiness the pope and the disgusting war criminal Tariq Aziz. (How one pictures that affecting scene!) Will you just remind me of what other full embassies Saddam's Iraq was maintaining in Europe in 1994? A time of international U.N. sanctions, no-fly zones, and the utter isolation of your government? A perch in Rome might have been worth having, arias or no arias.

Finally, I repeat my original question. You have claimed that you only went to West Africa in 1999 to try some ordinary sanctions-busting and to attempt to induce regional African governments to end the legal isolation of your genocidal chief. This seems discreditable in itself, but why on earth would such a lowly task fall to the Iraqi ambassador to the Holy See? Can you perhaps understand why Italian and British and French intelligence, given your IAEA background, raised an admonitory flag? Can you defend your assertion in Time magazine that you knew nothing of Niger's main product and export? Will you not admit that the awareness of your trip predated any attempt at any later forgery by whomever it was attempted or for whatever motive? Have you read the two independent British reports, confirming the validity of the initial intelligence? These are the real issues, and you only call renewed attention to them by your heavy efforts to be amusing.

Always happy to debate one of Saddam's toadies, however un-Baathist ("my dear fellow, much too vulgar for an aesthete like myself") he now claims to be.

Until your response,
Sincerely,
Christopher Hitchens
http://www.slate.com/id/2144017/

As to the question of France controlling all of Niger's yellow cake exports...I very seriously doubt that. But, even if it were true, France was at all times during the sanctions against Iraq violating those very sanctions by shipping materials into Iraq which were banned.

posted August 01, 2006 02:02 AM              

Scott Stearns
Pretoria
09 Jul 2003, 13:41 UTC

The White House has issued a rare retraction of allegations from the president's January State of the Union Address. Officials say President Bush's accusation that former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium in Africa, was based on what turned out to be a forged document.

Making his case against Saddam Hussein six months ago, President Bush said British intelligence reported that the then-Iraqi leader had tried to buy significant quantities of uranium from Niger.

The United Nations later concluded that those documents were forgeries and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer now admits that the information should not have been included in the State of the Union.

In South Africa Wednesday, President Bush side stepped the question, saying he is "absolutely confident" about his decision to invade Iraq.

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world peace. And there is no doubt in my mind that the United States along with allies and friends did the right thing in removing him from power," Mr. Bush said. " And there is no doubt in mind that when it is all said and done that the facts will show the world the truth."

The threat from Iraqi weapons was one of the president's biggest justifications for toppling Saddam Hussein. More than two months after the fall of Baghdad, none of those weapons has yet been found.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/intell/library/news/2003/intell-030709-voa01.htm

**********

CASE CLOSED

posted August 01, 2006 05:26 AM            

The case truly is closed on the Bush lied, people died bullsh*t.

Bush's "16 Words" on Iraq & Uranium:

He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

Two intelligence investigations show Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said in his 2003 State of the Union Address.

July 26, 2004
Modified: August 23, 2004

Summary

The famous “16 words” in President Bush’s Jan. 28, 2003 State of the Union address turn out to have a basis in fact after all, according to two recently released investigations in the US and Britain.

Bush said then, “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did.

A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”

A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.

Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.

But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.

Analysis

The "16 words" in Bush's State of the Union Address on Jan. 28, 2003 have been offered as evidence that the President led the US into war using false information intentionally. The new reports show Bush accurately stated what British intelligence was saying, and that CIA analysts believed the same thing.

The "16 Words"

During the State the Union Address on January 28, 2003, President Bush said:

Bush: The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.

The Butler Report

After nearly a six-month investigation, a special panel reported to the British Parliament July 14 that British intelligence had indeed concluded back in 2002 that Saddam Hussein was seeking to buy uranium. The review panel was headed by Lord Butler of Brockwell, who had been a cabinet secretary under five different Prime Ministers and who is currently master of University College, Oxford.

The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:

Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.

The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.

Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.

The Senate Intelligence Committee Report

The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.
http://www.factcheck.org/article222.html

posted August 01, 2006 06:46 AM              

quote:

---

He May Have Been Wrong But He Wasn't Lying

Bush had plenty of reason to believe what he said

---

LOL

CASE CLOSED

posted August 01, 2006 08:34 PM              

the only 'midevil' one throwing rocks here is the guy living in the glass whitehouse......

and i'll take the title heretic any day over being a brainwashed religious fundamentalist priest who still insists the earth is flat ...

posted August 01, 2006 09:15 PM            

quote:

---

ok lets see......condi rice, george tenet and the presidents spokesman ari fleisher all said the 16 words were based on the forged documents.....on top of that we've got an official whitehouse retraction of the statement as well as a senate intelligence committee report on iraq wmd(formed by bush himself) who says the 16 words were based on the forged documents...Petron

---

I have never seen or heard any comment from any of the people you listed who said the 16 words were based on forged documents Petron.

The 16 words were based on British intelligence who shared the information with the United States...."The British have learned...".and their own internal investigation...revealed their assessment was not based on the forged documents you cite.

posted August 01, 2006 09:42 PM              

its just like you to ignore what juniors own administration says and go to some third rate columnist for an opinion......or better yet.....to a british report put out well after the fact that offers no evidence whatsoever......

posted August 01, 2006 10:24 PM              

Yeah, but I bet Jwhop never bothered to read the Downing Street memo put out by a British intelligence agent.

You only wish the case was closed, Jwhop. It isn't and won't be. Come Nov. we will find out just how closed the case is if we have a legal election. If we don't I am real interested in how the Bush administration, Karl Rove and the rest of the neo-con Republicans are going to explain how the Democrats are leading in all polls and lose the election.