Hitchens raving about Wilson/Niger on Tweety....very end of show

he's claiming that ''Wilson's story is falling apart,'' and that the Iraqi sent to Niger was, indeed, their main Nuke acquisition guy

I only caught the last few moments, and have no idea what came before, but Tweety and the Newsweek cheech just sat there, accepting what he said, the Newsweek guy saying he never believed they were going into Iraq for WMDs! isn't that interesting

then, there's that Slate story that some twad linked here yesterday.

does Drinky McBullroar have something new on this, or what? he sure looked like he'd just crawled out of his refrigerator box next to Union Station to make his crazy charges

what's up with this?

EDIT: OK...I couln't find anything new from Slate, but alcibiades mystery found a recent one:
http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/nav/tap2


another EDIT: if you have any qualms about Wikipedia's credibility/usefulness in the political realm, just read the link....they cite the Senate Intel Report, trashing Wilson, but include NO rebuttal. nothing at all, just the easily disproved assertions...assertions disproved in the body of the report itself!
http://www.answers.com/topic/joseph-c-wilson

Bush's BITCH? Or did I mishear???

I just about crapped my pants when I heard that. LOL!!!!!!

he said Powell NEVER, ever wanted to go after nasty dictators, and he was against the war.

dunno the context, but why, then, did he LIE his ass off in front of the UN?

huh, Chris?

Hard to out-shout Tweety, but he got in a shot or two.

Did I hear the drunk call Powell someones "BITCH"...I swear that's what I heard...LOL!!!!!

all I heard was something about him being a nuclear expert of some sort (he very incorrectly used the acronym IAEA w/reference to the Iraq guy, which, of course, is the UN inspection group), and that they most assuredly were not discussing the price of corn.

did he make any sustantive assertions, other than to say Wilson's story is falling apart?

how come we're not hearing about that all over the place?

...and didn't focus on the rest of the piece. I did note that Drunky Hitch looked even worse than he usually does. For awhile there it looked as though he had "taken the pledge." Clearly, he's not only fallen off the wagon, he's landed in a pile of horseshit, and been run over by a few following carts whilst lying in the road!

His sole assertion is that Zawahie - then emissary to the Vatican - travelled to Niger in 1999; what interests Hitchens most is that Zahawie had a long history of being Saddam's point man on nuclear issues. This fact, combined with the trip to Niger, confirms for hitchens that Iraq sought uranium from Niger in 1999.

On its face, this seems plausible. But closer inspection causes the speculative claim to crumble. First, and most obviously, because any nuclear expert worth his salt would know that you cannot procure uranium through the Nigerese government, but must work through the mining companies, which are controlled by French run consortiums. In other words, nobody gets jack out of the Nigerese uranium mines without sending up huge red flags in the French intelligence apparatus, and everyone knows it. How then would a supposed expert on nuclear matters then propose to procure uranium undetected? He wouldn't, and thus goes Hitchens' premise, poof, like a fart in the wind. Oh, but they might say, maybe the French were in on it. Er, excuse me, but Hitchens' other premise is that the Italians tipped off the SGND to the trip (it was a friggin official trip by Hitchens own admission!), who then tipped off the Brits, and so on. If the French were "in on it" (a laughable notion on its face, but lets go with it to follow Hitchens' own incoherence), then why would they tip anybody off? A complete joke, in other words.

This is not even to mention Hitchens' ultimate dishonesty: he claims that there is no other plausible reason for Zawahie - the nuclear point guy - to go to Niger in 1999 but to begin the process of shopping for uranium. No other possible explanation, see? That's utter nonsense, to say the least. One could come up with many other explanations, given the Iraqi oil-for-food model and various business dealings at the time, the political status of the Niger government, the dealing with the French on various oil-for-food issues, and the long-standing French meddling in Nigerese affairs on behalf of their business interests. One need not even contemplate the officially stated reason for the official trip, which Hitchens doesn't bother to divulge. Could it be that Hitchens avoids mentioning any other reason for the trip because any of them would be as plausible or - given the structure of the uranium mining industry in Niger - dare I say MORE plausible than the little scneario he has concocted. One wonders...

that Wilson himself commented on Countdown last night that Hitchens had written this assertion on the web. Wilson said the Ambassador himself denied he approached Niger on uranium. I got the impression this was not a new story ....

BTW, I use the word Ambassador because that is the term used last evening. Wilson said the Ambassador went there for other reasons (and ticked a couple of those reasons off, but I do not remember what they were).

But we need not even take the Ambassador's word for it (it's not like he would say "Sure, I went to procure uranium."). Even if we do not take his word for it, Hitchens' piece is unsubstantiated and thoroughly implausible. The fact that he doesn't even provide the stated reason for the trip makes his argument look even weaker, since even the Ambassador's word would seem more plausible than hitchens' speculation.

I almost started a thread about it and realized it made no sense. Hell everything he mumbled made no sense. He was obviously drunk.

at all to what he's saying the full force of the M$M apology corps, combined with the massive RW Noise machine would have had this plastered all over the place by now....

so, what on earth does Hitchens think he's pulling with such craziness?

this could be fun...going for Slate story to see what he said

It must be awful strong.

he REALLY looked haggard. his hair was GREEEAZZZY, hanging in his face, and he looked the picture of dissipation

wait for the rerun. see what you think. he didn't sound drunk; he just looked like he'd come off a three day bender

stunningly prodigious. He does seem like he's back on the sauce though--for a brief period there, he looked like he had done a few weeks at "the retreat" and seemed healthier. But now, he's back to his tired, sweaty ways, apparently.

However, it was always beneath Hitchens to run around repeating Ken Mehlman's old talking points about the Wilson matter, which were discredited faster than Mehlman could click on SEND. For Hitchens to continue making a fool of himself like this is simply sad.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=908077&mesg_id=908077


http://www.slate.com/id/2139609/nav/tap2

What a complete joke he's made of himself. He's so humiliated by his asinine "contrarian" support for this catastrophic war that he will actually play thye naif in order to propagandize for it. And, of course, dim-witted ignorants in all camps follow along with his rank stupidities, also pretending. Since he likes the phrase so much, here's what you'd "have to believe":

1) That an emissary of Iraq can walk into Niger - on an "official visit," mind you, which would mean that he travelled openly(!) - hang out with some "corrupt" Nigerese bigwig (the racist implication is obvious, and not uncommon for Hitchens), and thereby "procure" some quantity of yellowcake uranium. The absolute laughability of this scenario is obvious to anyone with a hint of sense. Or to anyone not mesmerized by Bushista bullshit.

2) The French intelligence service would have to be "informed" of said "official trip" (!) by the - excuse me while I spit up laughing - Italian intelligence agencies, as if every fucking gram of uranium and any contemplation of sale thereof isn't controlled by French mining companies stacked to the gills with operatives for the Secretariat General de la Defense Nationale.

I mean, please. You'd have to be a fucking idiot to believe any of this. And, in fact, Hitchens is no idiot. A sly propagandist and outright opportunist, to be sure. A drunken self-aggrandizer and DC party circuit regular, yeah. But an idiot? Hardly. His excruciatingly pathetic defense of this long-debunked stupidity is crafted specifically to avoid these implications, which assures us that he is aware of them. His article is, therefore, a pack of outright lies, though as Twain has told us, and previous adherents of this article prove, a lie travels round the world before the truth gets its pants on.


______________________________________

Whether he actually procured it is irrelevant. The implication (and that's all there is) is that he thought he could procure it undetected. Otherwise, why bother. Since it is impossible - as your point 4 even concedes - that this could have happened given the structure of the uranium industry in Niger, it is a laughable assertion that he was down there trying to do so, since reasonable people don't try to do something they know to be impossible. Oh, but he was not reasonable, you say? But that is contrary to the very claim of nuclear expertise that would supposedly explain the trip. Hitchens entire speculative claim (and there is nothing but speculation here for Hitchens, which I hope you're honest enough to admit) is based on Zawahie's nuclear expertise, yet we're supposed to believe that the expert in the uranium trade thought he could procure uranium outside the auspices of the French companies, through various government officials in Niger, for example? That he was merely "sounding out" the situation on the ground, a situation well-known to anybody with even passing knowledge of the uranium industry, a situation that could be adequately sounded out by reading public industry research? It's ludicrous. Stretches of speculative imagination this wide do nothing but expose a fantasy or desitre beneath them, in this case, Hitchens' desire to justify this disastrous war. You also say Zawahie had no good reason for going to Niger. For my part, I try to be a critical reader, and not fall prey to Hitchens' speculations so readily. If Hitchens (or anyone, for that matter) bothered explaining the stated reason (it was an official trip, after all), one could evaluate this claim. Otherwise, it is nothing but Mr. Hitchens' partisan assertion. Previous posters on this thread have done a fine job showing up the holes in Hitchens' argument on just this point. And, as it stands, Hitchens' dishonesty is only compounded by the fact that he doesn't even bother presenting these alternative reasons for the trip - probably because each of them is as plausible - even more plausible - than his own speculation. As assertions go, it is itself a house of cards, as if the best way for Mr. Hussein to begin the process of procuring uranium would be to openly send somebody with a nuclear background on an official trip to Niger, whatever the pretenses!

The article is thoroughly unimportant, except as a measure of the desperation felt by warmongers like Hitchens as their previous propaganda is debunked point by point. As it stands, the article presents nothing substantive; it is pure speculation, and markedly incoherent speculation at that. Hitchens turns out to be a rather poor fiction writer, since even mediocre fiction writers manage to suspend disbelief by having their various plots cohere internally. Hitchens' article fails on even that point, as do your defenses of it.

that's the one the must be discussing at RW doss houses the world over

appreciate your quick response!

Taking bets? LOL!!!

Peace.

"Hitchens is a low brow with a thesaurus who licks jack boots"

hard to come up with a better way to remember the poor sod

OLBERMANN: Is that the same story as this, that was purported online today by Christopher Hitchens, whose reporting is on occasion very sound, he wrote that in February of ‘99, a man named Wisam al-Zahawari, Zahaiwai, excuse me...

WILSON: Zahawi.

OLBERMANN: ... Zahawi, was the Iraqi representative at that point of the International Atomic Energy Agency, paid an official visit to Niger. He doesn‘t come out and explicitly say that that trip in ‘99 was to seek uranium, but his headline does. It reads, “Sorry, everyone, but Iraq did go uranium shopping in Niger.” Is there merit to the Hitchens story?

WILSON: No. Mr. Al-Zahawi, Wisam al-Zahawi, who is a man that I know from my time as the acting ambassador in Baghdad during the first Gulf War, in the first Bush administration. He was ambassador to the Vatican, and he made a trip in 1999 to several West and Central African countries for the express purpose of inviting chiefs of state to violate the ban on travel to Iraq.

He has said repeatedly to the press, he‘s now in retirement, and also to the International Atomic Energy Agency, to their satisfaction, that uranium was not on his agenda.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12268699/

Tweety should get Hitchens and Wilson on at the same time so Wilson could slap Hitchens silly.

I don't get the IAEA connection. was he Iraq's representative to the IAEA, or what? sounds like a weird situation, one way or the other.

is al Zahawi a scientist?

gleeful mocking of Hitchens' alcoholism to be very distatsteful.

Winston Churchill and my mum were both alcoholics and they are 2 of my heroes, so forgive me if I have limited time for this kind of puerile "criticism".

Both Joe Wilson himself (on the Olbermann show) and DUer alcibiades_mystery have put forward alterntive versions of the story to Hitchens. They have suggested several other explanations why the visit might have taken place other than as a uranium shopping trip. Fine, these are very pursuasive arguments and it seems Hitchens should indeed review his position on this matter. (And it goes without saying that he was wrong about Iraq generally).

But I cannot sit by and hear him derided as nothing but a stupid alcoholic. Dismissing him in this way is just plain bone-headed.

Hitchens has an extraordinary mind and often writes with breathtaking power and passion. "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" anyone? He is provoctive, iconoclastic, thought-provoking. He is a free thinker. He is perhaps the best-read journalist I've read, able to write about anything from politics to art to opera to architecture. He has travelled a mind-boggling amount. He is a renaissance man. And when was the last time you heard someone calling a member of this disgusting administration a "bitch" on national TV? I for one think that's bloody fantastic and applaud anyone who has the balls to do it.

I've been flamed for defending Hitchens in tha last day or two. But when the best people can do is ridicule his intellect and his disease, then I make no apologies for standing up for the man irrespective of the abuse.

but I think rather his position on issues as bandit on television.

And a lot of people think he's sold his soul, so it's no big deal criticizing him for *merely* selling his body short.

Bush Administration's policies and lies. He's not stupid, which makes it even worse.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I'm sure you are a nice person, but ridiculing my mother's alcoholism is just abhorrent.

Below is my contribution to the thread that you link to.

Could you please show me where I made any "allegations"?

Also, you say "alcibiades' thread debunks your little contribution". Please tell me what theory or agenda I am forwarding that needed "debunking"? Am I part of some RW conspiracy?

______________________

Since it seems I'm the only idiot left to defend Hitchens, I'll give it a go! Gulp...

1. The article does not say that al-Zawahie "procured" uranium during his 1999 visit as your post suggests. It merely says that he made the visit. Hitchens then asks what he was there for if not to sound out the Niger governement about uranium, given that is about the only thing Niger has going for it. I think that is a reasonable issue to raise.

2. I cannot make out your allegation about racism at all. Could you quote the passage, because I've looked and can't see it. Unless you consider the allegation that African countries/governments are riddled with corruption to be in itself racist? To me it seems self-evidently true. Also, since you say that Hitchens has form in terms of racism, could you point me to some instances? That's a very strong allegation and I need to read more.

3. The article says that since al-Zawahie travelled from Rome, it was the Italians who first noticed his trip. This to me is not inconceivable, althogh admittedly it would be odd if the French didn't know about it in advance. I'm not sure how material this is to the substantive issue anyway.

4. On the issue of Frnch control of uranium, you are absolutely right, and succesive studies and reports have shown that there was basically no chance that Iqaq could get yellowcake with out someone noticing. But again, there is no suggestion in the article that any such transaction went through. Hitchens is merely saying that Iraq's top nuclear man was in Niger in 1999 for no apparant good reason. I say that logic dictates that this may well have been a "sounding out" of the situation vis a vis uranium.

5. It is my understanding that these events PRE-DATE the events that Wilson went to investigate, which allegedly happened in 2001, not 1999. Wilson (rightly) debunked the 2001 allegations as lies/forgeries. But that leaves the issue of the 1999 visit from al-Za that Hitchens highlights.

6. Hitchens a propagandist? No way. He is a free thinker.

7. Hitchens an opportunist? Probably.

Why is this article so important? Because if liberals say that Iraq never sought uranium-based ties with Niger and that turns out to be not true, then liberals lose control of the facts. Which, after all, are the only way.

Finally, I carry no agenda or ideolgy with me on this issue and I will immediatedly apologise and withdraw any of my above comments if they are sucessfully chalenged.

__________________________________


You find that post so offensive that you need to berate me about it for 2 days?

So I said "I think that is a reasonable issue to raise". Is that a terrible thing to say? And do I not acknowledge alcibiades' contibution in this thread? I should also say that I pm'd her/him to say thanks for their info.

Chomp's good people, y'all. If I hadn't witnessed Hitchens' increasingly bizarre right wing antics over the last ten years or so, I wouldn't believe it myself. Hitchens came up in the great tradition of British left contrarianism. It is sad as hell to see that he chose comfort in the arms of the right over his previous seemingly unshakeable principles.

it cause I didn't read your entire post

if you seriously think Hitchens is more than a very clever water carrier for the Bush administration, nothing I can say will change your mind



those who disagree with your points can read the thread to which the Hitchens article is dedicated. those there have done a much better job than I of pointing out that Hitchens brings NO NEW information to the table--only speculation as to what MAY have gone on between as Zahawi and the Nigerien officials

here's the thread
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=908077&mesg_id=908077

and.... Post #11 here sums that thread up pretty well

the reason that I, and others responded so vigorously to your thread should be obvious by now. Hitchens has proven himself to be a sad apparition of his former self, and is no longer taken seriously by anyone with more than a passing acquaintance with the reality of what's been happening since he began to shill for the Right Wing in the mid/late 90s.

sorry to have been so impolite, given your gentlemanly manner of response, but you must realize that hackles are very easily raised here when such tripe is presented by a well-known shill for those who have STOLEN our democracy from us, and will have their way in every corner of the world. I dare say that those here who've responded to Hitchens in the past, and to this story are incensed that he and his ilk get the sort of media exposure they do, when those that could easily refute the BS he spews get no time at all in comparison.

you probably didn't see it, but even Jon Stewart left Hitchens a mumbling puddle of recriminations on his TV show, as Hitchens couldn't defend his support of the war against a comedian. tossing his yammerings out in support of the obvious fabrication that Iraq tried to get yellowcake from Niger (when they already had hundreds of TONS of their own!) is guaranteed to cause some very ill-tempered responses.

I think we are talking about 2 different Hitchens, and perhaps your version of him is slightly more up to date than mine, so I'll need to keep a closer eye on him.

And as a reminder that even a stopped clock is right twice a day, here's one I'm sure you'll enjoy.


Cheers.

.................................................................

CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS SEES BUSH IN A DISASTER OF HIS OWN MAKING
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/tm_objectid=15922231&method=full&siteid=94762&headline=christopher-hitchens-sees-bush-in-a-disaster-of-his-own-making--name_page.html
2 September 2005
(UK National Newspaper. Left of centre.)

I LIVE on the eastern seaboard of the United States and the readers of the Mirror live on the other side of the Atlantic but we both know very well what New Orleans and Biloxi, and other parts of Louisiana and Mississippi, now look like from the air.

If we were President of the United States, we might want to do a little better than that.

Yesterday, George Bush did a fly-by to take a look at the condition of two stricken states, where the floodwaters now cover potentially thousands of dead Americans, and was presumably able to assure himself that the pictures he had already seen on television had not been faked. Today, it is announced he will be visiting the area in person tomorrow. Thus, a calamity that occurred at the beginning of the week will receive his personal attention by the weekend.

This casual approach seems almost if not actually unbelievable. It could be argued that the full impact of Hurricane Katrina didn't make itself known until after people had begun to exhale with relief. And it could be argued that a full-dress Presidential visit, with all the gargantuan security arrangements that it imposes, would be a further burden on the disastrously over-committed relief and emergency services. But the country doesn't almost lose a major and historic city every week, and Ronald Reagan would have been on national television by now, speaking gravely about the plight of his "fellow-Americans".

...more...

Why, he's a drunk and is, in essence, committing suicide (trashing his liver) on the "installment plan."

How about we help Tweety catch a clue and plan for a FULL SCALE INTERVENTION the next time Hitchens lands on his show? Now "an therapeutic intervention" would be the most thoughtful show Tweety would ever host in his scum sucking, power lovin', corporate whoring journalistic career. Yes?

Intervention for Hitchens? :cheers:

They lie about all the reasons for going there and then they don't sign up to fight, then they totally fail to equip and prepare the troops who went there. Yet somehow everyone else but them is delusional.

Hitch is speaking in tongues again.

I believe there's one for radio, but TV?

least.

and, after the things he said about the first family during the last admin, well, all's fair, as they say

he's earned all the contumely he's amassed

It was delusional fantasy.

bolstering the narrative that's already been agreed to have happened

his little flight of extra sensory perception was something else, wasn't it?

and why didn't he mention the two other people that were sent over to check out the story, with both of whom Wilson agreed?

would that have made it more difficult for him to push his own screed, having to diss somebody other than the RW's favorite whipping boy?