Butler 'wrong' on Iraq uranium link

[DoYouEverWonder]

25 July 2004

A leading nuclear expert has pointed out a technical error in the Butler report on WMD intelligence in Iraq, and criticised the committee's finding that intelligence on Saddam Hussein seeking uranium from Africa was "credible".

The Butler report demolished the most controversial allegation in the Government's September 2002 WMD dossier - that Iraq could deploy chemical or biological weapons in 45 minutes - but observers were surprised that the uranium claim passed scrutiny.

American investigators have dismissed the suggestion that Iraq was seeking uranium from the west African state of Niger in a quest for nuclear weapons, because it was based on forged documents. It was also inherently implausible, they added, since Iraq had 550 tons of "yellowcake" - uranium which has undergone the first stage of processing. But the Butler committee accepted the Government's contention that it had separate intelligence, which has never been disclosed, to support the claim.


http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=544436



I guess Wilson was right after all?

[muriel_volestrangler]

1. dupe

of http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x707367

[whistle]

2. Uhmmm, connect Saddam, Iraq, 9/11 terrorist attacks.....

...I guess Richard Clark was correct, George Bush and the rest of his administration wanted Iraq to be involved no matter what the facts showed. Also, Bush didn't seem to care what the cost in lives, treasure and credibility abroad would be to America. He just wanted Saddam out.

[bahrbearian]

3. Thanks for the post , I haven't seen it posted

[The Doctor.]

4. (Universal Post of the Day)

I find it so hard to believe how much absolutely blatant abuse of power is being exercised by this administration. And so many people are BLIND to it!
I am in contact with many so-called 'Republicans'. (I'm a REAL Republican and independent thinker - this administration is not any thing that belongs to this country.) As a Republican I find I have instant edification with other 'Republicans' because they believe I will agree with them carte-blanche. I love to make this one point every once in a while;

"I'd rather the President of the United States were impeached for selling weapons to anti-US third world countries, For manipulating intelligence on a path to war, or For abrogating the Geneva Convention, rather than for lying to a grand jury about whether or not he had sex with an intern."

- I don't attack or accuse - that would give the 'Republican' impetus to go counter-offensive. I rather deliver my concern in a more thoughful tone with a hint of irony... they almost always walk away very thoughtful of what I've said.

Something is VERY wrong here when these things are allowed to go on after an entire country got bent out of shape over whether or not a guy lied about a BJ!

I'm trying to get people to wise up - but so long as people have their SUV's, their Satellite TV, and they're being told what they want to hear, it's just too much work for them to think for themselves. Worse... when I see someone catch a glimpse of what's really happening - I can see a flash of real fear erase the image from their mind. Forever to forget and live in comfort.

We cannot let this happen.

[salin]

5. I agree....

an underlying problem is that it is easier and more comfortable to buy the b.s. rather than deal with the cognitive dissonance that follows. I still read letters to the editor locally that work from a premise of ..."they have access to more information that we do... and are working with our best interests at heart..." Why? Because the idea that perhaps our government - democrats or republicans - would do things that are harmful (i.e., policies that work against our national security and make us less safe)... is in complete juxtaposition with our beliefs about democracy, about the virtues of the American system of government.

Thus the twinges of cognitive dissonance may tweak at the conscience, but dealing with the dissonance - in a way that resolves it by recognizing that this administration HAS compromised our security, our ideals, our standing in the world, our economic stability, etc. - is very, very destabilizing. Thus when the spin machine gives us "tools" to ease the cognitive dissonance with lame excuses... it is easier for many to swallow the spin and go back into the comfort zone (and yes, to enjoy the luxuries such as satellite tv and suvs)... But imo, it is not just because of superficial materialism, but because there is real pain/work involved in letting go of a naive view of the absolute "goodness" of our system and of those who are leading us.

I strongly believe that understanding the psychological component underlying many folks inability to "see" what the administration has done and continues to do - even though the evidence is right out there for all to see and evaluate - is important if we are to penetrate the public psyche in terms of what it is we are really facing in the long term implications of this administration's policies. The approach that you describe - engaging in a discussion rather than a fight, using factual "irony" to point out the dissonance, with the main goal of the conversation being to plant the seeds of thought... and to nurture that dissonance - such that when more news comes out, followed by administration (and talking head) spin that perhaps rather than leading to complacent acceptance of the silly spin (because it is more psychologically comforting than the implications of the administration lies), instead this next round might lead to further dissonance... and finally working through it the tough way... to a less naive view.

While I am a life-long democrat, I do believe that healthy policy debate - as it used to occur in Washington - that forces consideration of different political views - leads to much better policies. That holding rigid, naive, ideology that views policy debate as war rather than a means to develop better policy - leads to brutal abuse of power and very bad national policy. Which is where we are today (along with a perverse level of influence buying that further muddies the situation.) We the people, can not begin to take control of our government until we let go of the naive belief that the democratic system - just because it exists - is always virtuous and good and therefor we don't need to question, critique, and most importantly participate.

[The Doctor.]

6. I know what you're saying...

I've seen so many people who are too smart for their own good. Even more who are too difficult to follow because their thought process far outstrips their ability to articulate it. Your intellect is truly dizzying. (I can appreciate that.)

Penetrating the public psyche is, as you know, the crux of the matter. It ain't gonna happen on our watch brother. (Though I'd love to see a mass- introspection of that particular sort.)
My hope is that after another 60 years or so (provided the Human race survives), we will begin to realize a more universal mentality focused on the survival of the species with regard to what resources we have available. It would appear that is the farthest thing from most American's minds right now, when it is conversely the most important thing to our immediate survival. Should we begin to think on a more Global level to alleviate strife in undeveloped countries, we will find that contentment the world over will have a far more profound effect than 'Cowboy Diplomacy'.
While I don't expect anything of the sort anytime soon... I hold out hope and share information in the meanwhile.

[salin]

7. Btw, welcome to DU

I can barely find time these days, except on the weekend to participate. I do hope that we run across each others' paths periodically - as what you are writing, here and on another thread, resonate with me and with how I think.

One of my newer friends (of the past several years, as opposed to life long friends) - has worked on and off with a major (in terms of importance) right leaning think-tank. We intersect on several educational policy issues - and for the longest time avoided pure political discussions as it was easy to fall back into partisan discussions. However, we have come to realize that while our ideology helps shape how we view issues, and view policies to address issues - we also recognize the limitations of our ideologies and the fact that sometimes opposing ideologies introduce important ideas - and critiques that should be incorporated into the policy formulation discussions. I tell you this, due to your brave (on this site) acknowledgement of being of republican roots and the vague familiarity I feel in these first conversations that remind me of the conversations I have with my good friend who once declared that he would have a hard time living it down if any of his friends saw us dining together due the Dean pin on my purse strap. That is my long way of saying - hello, and I hope that we will find many opportunties for discourse.

Per penetrating the public psyche - I think it can happen more quickly than over a period of sixty years - but only if something jars it. Sometimes I think that this particular administration is SO arrogant, so full of contempt for the public, that if it fails in a large way... and in a way (like with Nixon) that the public fully sees some of its actions in the callous light deserved... that there will be a forced point of cognitive dissonance that will allow for the public and self examination that is so sorely needed for our survival. However, I often think that my view is hopelessly naive - given how egregious the actions of this administration has been and the lack of public awareness about the implications of these actions.

[OKNancy]

8. Duplicate

Please continue here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x707367