Posted on 01/18/2006 5:42:23 AM PST by frankjr
A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.
The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
In early 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency sent the former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger to investigate possible attempts to sell uranium to Iraq. The next year, after Mr. Wilson became a vocal critic of the Bush administration's Iraqi intelligence, the identity of his wife, Valerie Wilson, a C.I.A. officer who suggested him for the Niger trip, was made public. The investigation into the leak led to criminal charges in October against Mr. Libby, who is accused of misleading investigators and a grand jury.
The review concluded that Niger was "probably not planning to sell uranium to Iraq," in part because France controlled the uranium industry in the country and could block such a sale.
Mr. Wilson said in an interview that he did not remember ever seeing the memo but that its analysis should raise further questions about why the White House remained convinced for so long that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.
"All the people understood that there was documentary evidence" suggesting that the intelligence about the sale was faulty, he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
First the NYT starts the story out with "... in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely"..." The Bush Admin NEVER claimed there was a SALE of uranium to Iraq. The accusation was there was an attempt by Iraq to purchase Uranium. British intel still stands by the story and even the CIA said Joe "Lying" Wilson's trip to Niger backed that claim.
Secondly, the article states "... "probably not planning to sell uranium to Iraq," in part because France controlled the uranium industry in the country and could block such a sale." LOL!!! France try to block a sale? After the whole oil-for-food scam, does the NYT actually believe France would stop a sale.
Finally, the NYT continues to use Joe "Lying" Wilson as a source. This is even after the Senate Select Committee proved and concluded that Wilson was a liar.
Come on NYT (and ERIC "The Hack" LICHTBLAU), quit being so lazy and rehashing old stories that have been discredited. Twisting the facts does not make a new story.
At least they're not hyping "Brokeback Mountain" in the article...uh, are they?
Joe was going to Niger on company business, and his wife got the CIA to let him 'spy' on the supposed sale of yellowcake.
NO ONE EVER ASKS THIS. What was Joe's company, the one that was in Niger, DOING, that required Joe's presence?
No, quite the opposite is true. The Brits never said they endorsed any of Bush's many fake tidbits in his 2003 SOU address.
From the 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.
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.
From the Senate Committee:
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.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.The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
Not only did they "say it", they put it in writing.
Great job! (although MurryMom is barely worth the effort)
Iraq and four other countries were attempting to purchase uranium from Niger as far back as 1999, European intelligence officials told the Financial Times. The unidentified sources told the newspaper illicit sales were being negotiated at least three years before last year's U.S.-led invasion.
They said between 1999 and 2001, uranium smugglers planned to sell the ore or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.
An official said meetings between Niger officials and would-be buyers from the five countries were held in several European countries. Intelligence officers were convinced that the uranium would be smuggled from abandoned mines in Niger, circumventing official export controls.
European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.
Information gathered in 1999-2001 suggested that the uranium sold illicitly would be extracted from mines in Niger that had been abandoned as uneconomic by the two French-owned mining companies-Cominak and Somair, both of which are owned by the mining giant Cogema-operating in Niger.
"Mines can be abandoned by Cogema when they become unproductive. This doesn't mean that people near the mines can't keep on extracting," a senior European counter-proliferation official said.
None of the "information" about nuclular weapons in Bush's SOU address was true. Everything he said was either outright false or intentionally misleading. There were no nucular weapons, as proved by the fact that seals left by the U.N. inspectors still remained when U.S. troops invaded Iraq later in 2003. Bush and Cheney allusions in 2002 and 2003 speeches to a "mushroom cloud" originating from an Iraqi weapon were mere red meat for willing dupes, with absolutely no factual basis. If Iraq had ever obtained a nuclear fraction plant its size would have exceeded 2 football fields so that it could have been easily spotted by U.N. inspectors and "removed" by an Israeli missile.
In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson’s report upon his return from Niger:
Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.At this point the CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence."
Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.
< snip>
Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.
Now, if you want to get into the whole story of how the CIA set Bush up on this, we can go there too.
This is the same agency that previously blamed the French for the forgeries. They're completely untrustworthy.
A four-star general, Carlton W. Fulford Jr., was also sent to Niger to investigate the claims of a uranium purchase. He, too, came away with doubts about the reliability of the report and believed Niger's yellowcake supply to be secure.
This is the first time his report has been released. This story is far from over.
The SOTU never said Iraq had nuclear weapons. It implied they were trying to restart their program.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.That's what all the intelligence agencies were saying. Every word in the SOTU is reviewed by the intelligence agencies and they signed off on its contents. How is it "intentionally misleading" for the President to tell us what the intelligence agencies have told him?
The argument that the President lied is absurd on its face and in its details. For him to literally lie, he had to know that Iraq had gotten rid of its WMD. All the intelligence agencies including our, Russia's, France's, Germany's and Britain's said he still had them. For the President to have lied, he would have had to know all these intelligence estimates were wrong. How would he know that? Was he meeting Tariq Aziz in a parking garage at 3AM? Then, knowing the WMD were gone, he would have still used them as a primary causus belli. He would be simultaneously smarter than the whole world and dumber than a post. Reductio ad absurdam.
In the details there have been multiple investigations into the intelligence failures. David Kay's, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the Iraq Survey Group, and the Blue Ribbon Panel. All four found serious flaws with the intelligence gathering and analysis processes. All four looked for evidence of political pressure on the analysts and found none. One analyst found that the pressure to justify his conclusions improved his work rather than hurt it. Even that notion is absurd on its face. How much pressure do you need to apply to get someone to say the same thing they've been saying all along.
Sorry again, dear, you fumbled the ball again...
June 6 [2005]: In the desert west of Baghdad, Marines discover an underground bunker the size of six football fields, with living spaces and bathrooms.
The story is here , along with video of the bunker.
Where did the 100 or so tons of yellowcake, which was removed from Iraq by Coalition forces come from?
Are you saying this bunker wasn't spotted by U.N. inspectors and contained materials for making nucular weapons? If you are saying so, you are flat wrong.
Hey liberal, didn't you blame the SISMI for the forgeries? Not so. The finger seems to point at someone in the Niger Embassy. And they were disseminated by someone who was being paid by French intelligence. If SISMI is unreliable, what do you think of the French?
Investigators on April 8 discovered that Al-Tuwaitha hides another city. This underground nexus of labs, warehouses, and bomb proof offices was hidden from the public and, perhaps, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors who combed the site just two months ago, until the US Marine Corps combat engineers discovered it three days ago. Today, the Marines hold it against enemy counter-attacks.
So far, Marine nuclear and intelligence experts have discovered 14 buildings that betray high levels of radiation. Some of the readings show nuclear residue too deadly for human occupation. A few hundred meters outside the complex, where peasants say the "missile water" is stored in mammoth caverns, the Marine radiation detectors go "off the charts."
Here is another story about it that has more detail and states that which says that David Albright, a former International Atomic Energy Agency inspector in Iraq from 1992 to 1997, was not aware of the facility.
Now...take your ball and go home to LaLa Land..I don't have time to play with you any more.
Since we're revisiting this subject, it appears to me that the CIA nuclear proliferation office (Plame?) was leaking like crazy. It was leaking to former CIA agents, e.g., Vince Cannistraro.
I'm wondering what the NYT is thinking with this barrage of disinformation that they have been spewing. Do they believe what they are saying or do they just believe the old Saul Alinsky rule, that if you tell a lie enough times, you can push it through to the other side?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.