TIME outline of Niger tale is damning

[berry]

For one thing, it hints that the reason Bushco* didn't make the intel available to ElBaradei for 6 weeks was that they KNEW it was bogus and they needed the time to get solid support for the war. And by saying that they "immediately" bashed the Iraqi 12,000 page document, they question if it was ever even read.

Most of us have thought these thoughts--but here it is, in timeline form, with minimal editorial comment, and utterly damning. (Condi of course comes off badly, but so does Powell--no mention of the Pentagon here, so it's not perfect, but a good start.)

I clipped 5 paras, but it's best if you go to the link and read the whole thing in order. The effect is cumulative.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,464457,00.html

Monday, Jul. 21, 2003
Tale Of The Cake
Since March 2002, CIA officials had known the Niger tale wasn't credible. So why did it resurface?
By MITCH FRANK


****

*SEPT. 24, 2002: A British intelligence report on Iraq features a claim that "Iraq has sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." White House spokesman Ari Fleischer touts it, saying, "We agree with their findings." Two days later, in a closed briefing, Colin Powell tells the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that U.S. intelligence has proof of an Iraqi attempt to buy uranium from Niger.

*OCT. 10, 2002: The House of Representatives passes a resolution authorizing use of force against Iraq; the Senate passes it the next day. More than 180 members of Congress mention the possible Iraqi nuclear threat as a reason for supporting the resolution, and several Senators cite the British report of Iraqi attempts to purchase uranium yellowcake.

*DEC. 7, 2002: Iraq submits a 12,200-page weapons declaration to the United Nations. The Administration immediately begins leaking criticisms of the report. Twelve days later, the State Department issues "eight key omissions and deceptions" by the Iraqis. Included: "The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger." It does not attribute the charge to the British.

*DECEMBER 2002: After seeing the State Department's retort to the Iraqis, the International Atomic Energy Agency, headed by Mohamed ElBaradei, asks the Administration for proof of the Niger allegation so it can investigate the claim. The U.S. says little for six weeks — a crucial period during which the Administration is making its case for war.

**

*JAN. 23, 2003: Condi Rice writes an op-ed calling Iraq's report "a 12,200-page lie" and asserts, "The declaration fails to account for or explain Iraq's efforts to get uranium from abroad."

**

[linazelle]

1. The Lie Echoed Which is what makes this chronology so damning

This totally erases Bushco's claims that the statement was only made once and carried very little weight. Thank God for the truth.

[salin]

2. and its inclusion in a mass consumption publication

one that often sits for weeks beyond its sales date in waiting rooms across the country, suggests that many folks who are not getting alot of this information - or who only hear talk radio's one-sided take on things (how many workplaces now have someone blasting rush) - will read this very clear item - and perhaps begin to draw their own conclusions. Glad to see it.

[linazelle]

3. kick

:kick: