Christopher Hitchens Sets the Facts Straight (Again)
Christopher Hitchens has been a great source on Iraq’s WMD programs and on its culture. His article in Slate is just another refutation of Joe Wilson. Let’s take a look:
In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iraq’s senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect, was a man named Wissam al-Zahawie. After the Kuwait war in 1991, when Rolf Ekeus arrived in Baghdad to begin the inspection and disarmament work of UNSCOM, he was greeted by Zahawie, who told him in a bitter manner that “now that you have come to take away our assets,” the two men could no longer be friends. (They had known each other in earlier incarnations at the United Nations in New York.)
At a later 1995 U.N. special session on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Zahawie was the Iraqi delegate and spoke heatedly about the urgent need to counterbalance Israel’s nuclear capacity. At the time, most democratic countries did not have full diplomatic relations with Saddam’s regime, and there were few fully accredited Iraqi ambassadors overseas, Iraq’s interests often being represented by the genocidal Islamist government of Sudan (incidentally, yet another example of collusion between “secular” Baathists and the fundamentalists who were sheltering Osama Bin Laden). There was one exception, an Iraqi “window” into the world of open diplomacy, namely the mutual recognition between the Baathist regime and the Vatican. To this very important and sensitive post in Rome, Zahawie was appointed in 1997, holding the job of Saddam’s ambassador to the Holy See until 2000. Those who knew him at that time remember a man much given to anti-Jewish tirades, with a standing ticket for Wagner performances at Bayreuth. (Actually, as a fan of Das Rheingold and Götterdämmerung in particular, I find I can live with this. Hitler secretly preferred sickly kitsch like Franz Lehar.)
In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq had originally acquired uranium in 1981, as confirmed in the Duelfer Report. In order to take the Joseph Wilson view of this Baathist ambassadorial initiative, you have to be able to believe that Saddam Hussein’s long-term main man on nuclear issues was in Niger to talk about something other than the obvious. Italian intelligence (which first noticed the Zahawie trip from Rome) found it difficult to take this view and alerted French intelligence (which has better contacts in West Africa and a stronger interest in nuclear questions). In due time, the French tipped off the British, who in their cousinly way conveyed the suggestive information to Washington. As everyone now knows, the disclosure appeared in watered-down and secondhand form in the president’s State of the Union address in January 2003.
It’s insulting to think that Joe Wilson would have us believe that “Saddam Hussein’s long-term main man on nuclear issues” wasn’t “in Niger to talk about” yellowcake uranium. After all, it isn’t like this wasn’t an official visit. It seems pretty clear that Zahawie wasn’t there to buy goats or millets, Niger’s second and third biddest exports at the time.
A few paragraphs later appear, the wonderful and unchallenged words from Zahawie: “Frankly, I didn’t know that Niger produced uranium at all.”
That’s a line that’s so absurd that it’d make Baghdad Bob blush.
The Duelfer Report also cites “a second contact between Iraq and Niger,” which occurred in 2001, when a Niger minister visited Baghdad “to request assistance in obtaining petroleum products to alleviate Niger’s economic problems.” According to the deposition of Ja’far Diya’ Ja’far (the head of Iraq’s pre-1991 nuclear weapons program), these negotiations involved no offer of uranium ore but only “cash in exchange for petroleum.” West Africa is awash in petroleum, and Niger is poor in cash. Iraq in 2001 was cash-rich through the oil-for-food racket, but you may if you wish choose to believe that a near-bankrupt African delegation from a uranium-based country traveled across a continent and a half with nothing on its mind but shopping for oil.
In other words, Wilson’s tall tales can’t be taken seriously by a thinking, sane adult.
That explains why moonbats are the only people giving him credibility.
Technorati Tags: Niger, Wilson, Christopher Hitchens, al-Zahawie, Saddam
Cross-post at LetFreedomRingBlog
April 11th, 2006 at 5:08 am
You are wrong again. The only people not giving him credibility are the neo-con clones who always want to focus on the victums and not the perps. What about the ‘Leaker-in-chief’ only leaking the parts of the report which supported HIS views? Oh he gets a get out of Hell free card for that. Your noe-con inconsistantcies will always betray you. This president is a joke. Unfortunately its a joke on the American public.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:03 am
I think you read as poorly as Hitchens writes: he spends his precious first three paragraphs making intimations and then neglects to mention that upon review by multiple intelligence agencies, these intimations were revealed to be a red herring. The irresponsibility of you people is astounding: one does not start a war over intimations! I can only conclude that conservatives suffer a moral deficit so extreme that they cannot comprehend how terrible a decision making war is, and that they suffer an even more incredibly astounding inability to face what they have wrought.
Keep drinkin’ Hitch — it makes you as incoherent as Chomsky.
April 11th, 2006 at 7:04 am
Chris Hitchens on the Iraq/Niger/uranium issue
Hitch breaks all the details down regarding the claims that Iraq sought uranium from Niger:
In the late 1980s, the Iraqi representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency—Iraq’s senior public envoy for nuclear matters, in effect—was a …
April 11th, 2006 at 9:05 am
Wilson did addresss the supposed uranium seeking behavior of the Iraqi representative. Wilson went to the Nigerian officer that was met with and asked about the meeting. The Nigerian said that he was met with and also assumed that it was about uranium BUT the subject never came up, probably (he thought) because he made an effort to steer the discussion away from trade issues.
Now, make of that what you will, but Wilson reported it just that way along with his opinion that there was very little to substanciate the view that Iraq was trying in any serious way to buy yellowcake uranium from Niger.
What shocked him was that this “very little” was deemed “more than enough” to warrant including the allegation in the SOFU. And as it turned out, the White House itself admitted later that those “16 words” should not have been there.
One can stand on a rooftop and scream “BUT WHAT ELSE COULD AN IRAQI HAVE BEEN MEETING WITH A NIGERIAN TRADE OFFICAL ABOUT?” But the fact is, he didn’t ask for yellowcake uranium during that meeting and in the absence of any credible supporting evidence the gun remains conspiciouly without smoke.
Does one try and make the case for going to war with such flimsy stuff? Not if one has a shed of integrity or wisdom.
April 11th, 2006 at 9:15 am
Sorry everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger
Christopher Hitchens writes in Slate:
In February 1999, Zahawie left his Vatican office for a few days and paid an official visit to Niger, a country known for absolutely nothing except its vast deposits of uranium ore. It was from Niger that Iraq ha…
April 11th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Bad teeth = bad ideas.
Why anyone pays attention to a guy who can’t even seem to get to the dentist or brush his teeth is beyond me.
Something has snapped in Hitchen’s brain - and there is some evidence that unhealthy gums can lead to increased mental illness.
It certainly makes more sense than his baseless assertions about yellowcake.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:26 am
Sigh. Wilson’s mission, as he writes in his first op-ed, was clear: to determine whether a report the US gov’t had of a memorandum claiming there was a bill of sale between Niger and Iraq for yellowcake was true. It wasn’t. He never disputed they were seeking yellowcake, just whether or not it was remotely likely. It wasn’t.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:29 am
Hitchens thinks that looking really pissed off is a good substitute for a well thought out argument. He’s getting to be like Bill O’Reilly…albeit with worse teeth and better diction.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:06 am
I guess for you reading Hitchens is like reading the Bible for fundamentalists: no need for actual proof, simply belief.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:17 am
There are lots of reasons why the Iraq diplomats were in Africa, and it’s no suprise to anyone but this White House that they had nothing to do with uranium. According to the record, the talks were designed to get African ambassadors to violate the travel restrictions and visit Iraq.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:34 am
I believe that Iraq’s WMD were beamed up by aliens and then inserted into Cartman’s ass during an anal probe.
Prove me wrong.
April 11th, 2006 at 11:36 am
“In other words, Wilson’s tall tales can’t be taken seriously by a thinking, sane adult.
That explains why moonbats are the only people giving him credibility.”
Judging by the latest polls the “moonbat” ranks have been swelling, mightily !
April 11th, 2006 at 11:40 am
“I believe that Iraq’s WMD were beamed up by aliens and then inserted into Cartman’s ass during an anal probe.
Prove me wrong.”
My dear man, had the Iraqi WMD’s been inserted into Cartman’s ass by aliens, as you claim, then when tremendous flaming farts issued from young Cartman’s capacious anal cavity, the fuses on the anthrax-bearing SCUD warheads would have ignited, killing all sheep in the greater Southpark Metropolitan area. Since the sheep are obviously alive and gamboling, we can only surmise that the WMD’s were inserted into some other capacious anal cavity - and my money is on Karl Rove’s ass. So to speak.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:13 pm
Good point.
Karl Rove had the motive, opportunity, and the ample (if not saggy and pimply) space.
April 11th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Capacious anal capacity notwithstanding, I categorically deny that WMDs were inserted in my sphincter.
Karl
April 11th, 2006 at 12:34 pm
Ahh yes, yellowcake. So deadly. So dangerous. So… useless. Has anyone bothered to ask a nuclear physicist?
Jude Wanniski did:
http://www.wanniski.com/showarticle.asp?articleid=2704
“The(y) must have been desperate to have seized on a sale of yellowcake by Niger to Iraq as an excuse for war. What good would yellowcake — a mixture of Uranium oxides — have been to the Iraqis? Yellowcake contains less than 0.3% U235. You need uranium enriched to 90% U235 to make a nuke. You need to be able to convert yellowcake into uranium hexafluoride — a solid at room temperature. Then you need to gasify UF6 and run it through cascades of gas centrifuges, tens of thousands of them. Iraq never had the capability of producing kilogram amounts of HEU, and what capability they had was utterly destroyed during the Gulf War and its aftermath and never rebuilt.”
Also, one of Wilson’s basic findings, as I recall, was that Iraq could not possibly obtain uranium from Niger, since all uranium mining in Niger is under the direct physical control of the French, and since all uranium mined in Niger is sold before being mined. (A legitimate buyer can contract for some uranium in two years; there’s no uranium stocked in the back to sell to the foot traffic.)
There’s more reason to declare war against Canada than this hyped-up evidence…
April 11th, 2006 at 12:55 pm
Ahh yes, yellowcake. So deadly. So dangerous. So… useless.
Don’t forget, so yummy too.
MMM, yellow cake.
April 11th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
“Then you need to gasify UF6 and run it through cascades of gas centrifuges”
The TUBES! The TUBES! The mythical, inappropriately constituted ALUMINUM FREAKIN’ TUBES that Condi (sexy National Security Advisor by day/ savvy Nuclear Engineer by night) was so friggin’ sure were meant ONLY for CENTRIFUGES!!!
Jumpin’ Jehosophat! You’ve cracked the case, JT!
April 11th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
I that now that the President has been implicated in surreptitious intelligence leaks, we are back to the old straw man attack on Wilson.
1. Misstate Wilson’s conclusions
2. Offer evidence that those conclusions that Wilson never had were wrong.
3. Call Wilson a liar
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Sigh…So let’s go again. Here is what Wilson did not conclude.
1. He did not conclude that Saddam was not interested in building a nuclear capability.
2. He did not conclude that Saddam had not made some kind of effort to negotiate access to uranium ore.
So what did he conclude–that whatever Saddam’s wishes or intentions, there was no indication that he had, or was likely to have, any success in obtaining uranium from Niger.
And after all this time, there is still no evidence that Wilson was incorrect. On the other hand, the contention by multiple administration officials that Iraq had a nuclear capability that posed an imminent threat to the US, and which was supported by biased partial leaks of classified intelligence by the administration still appears to be completely false
April 11th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
You’re using arguements even the White House won’t use anymore by fear of looking crazy.
April 11th, 2006 at 2:09 pm
Aren’t you conservatives getting tired of making excuses for this man?
Look, don’t feel bad. He didn’t just fool you. He had the brightest and best-paid PR people in history behind him. He fooled a lot of smart, pragmatic people.
But facts are facts. And it’s time to face them.
April 11th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
Here is what Colin Powell recently said on the subject, someone I would consider just a tad more relevant than Hitchens-
“The CIA was pushing the aluminum tube argument heavily and Cheney went with that instead of what our guys wrote,†Powell said. And the Niger reference in Bush’s State of the Union speech? “That was a big mistake,†he said. “It should never have been in the speech. I didn’t need Wilson to tell me that there wasn’t a Niger connection. He didn’t tell us anything we didn’t already know. I never believed it.â€
When I pressed further as to why the president played up the Iraq nuclear threat, Powell said it wasn’t the president: “That was all Cheney.â€
Read the whole interview here-
http://tinyurl.com/ma9d6
April 12th, 2006 at 2:55 am
[...] California Conservative has some excellent analysis with Christopher Hitchens Sets the Facts Straight (Again) [...]
April 12th, 2006 at 6:39 am
Cheney - schmeney - the evil bastard wouldn’t be vice president if Bush hadn’t been stupid enough to fall for the old “hey, George, let me help you pick a vice president” routine.
Once again - its that:
“There’s an old saying in Tennessee — I know it’s in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can’t get fooled again”
Anyone so mentally impaired as to be unable to repeat cliches should not be anywhere near any nuclear buttons.
April 12th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
Hitchens is a nut.
April 13th, 2006 at 12:16 am
Are you conservatives STILL going on about this crap?
Dear god, just when you hallucinatory sheep can’t seem to get any more intellectually challenged or morally bankrupt, you lower the bar.
Again.
Conservatism is dead.
All your “ideas” have been shown to be fantasies.
At best.
Time and time again your opinion has show to be worthless and dangerously divorced from reality.
If anyone wants to know your opinion, we’ll slap Karl Rove’s dick out of your mouth.
April 24th, 2006 at 8:11 am
Hey Call You Fister,
Maybe you should revisit the electoral map of our last presidential election. And here’s also some recommended reading.
As much as you may hope, conservatism is far from dead. Knowledge is power, and with the MSM losing its grip on indoctrinating the public (sorry, “reporting“), our base is only growing. Radical liberalism is the LostKos.
As for your last remark about oral activity, if you’re looking for some slapping, we’ve got plenty of liberal friends in San Francisco happy to oblige you in that manner. Thanks for your comments.