French secret service 'kept CIA in the dark over Iraq and uranium'

The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 07/14/03 | Michael Smith

[Pokey78]

The French secret service is believed to have refused to allow MI6 to give the Americans "credible" intelligence showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, US intelligence sources said yesterday.

MI6 had more than one "different and credible" piece of intelligence to show that Iraq was attempting to buy the ore, known as yellowcake, British officials insisted. But it was given to them by at least one and possibly two intelligence services and, under the rules governing cooperation, it could not be shared with anyone else without the originator's permission.

US intelligence sources believe that the most likely source of the MI6 intelligence was the French secret service, the DGSE. Niger is a former French colony and its uranium mines are run by a French company that comes under the control of the French Atomic Energy Commission.

A further factor in the refusal to hand over the information might have been concern that the US administration's willingness to publicise intelligence might lead to sources being inadvertently disclosed.

US sources also point out that the French government was vehemently opposed to the war with Iraq and so suggest that it would have been instinctively against the idea of passing on the intelligence.

British sources yesterday dismissed suggestions of a row between MI6 and the CIA on the issue. However, they admitted being surprised that George Tenet, the CIA director, had apologised to President George W Bush for allowing him to cite the British government and its claim that Saddam had sought to acquire uranium from Africa in his State of the Union speech last October.

The apology follows the International Atomic Energy Authority's dismissal of documents given to it by the CIA, which purported to prove the link, as fakes.

Those documents have been widely identified with last September's British dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which said Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium ore from an unnamed country in Africa.

British officials admitted that the country was Niger but insisted that the intelligence behind it was genuine and had nothing to do with the fake documents. It was convincing and they were sticking with it, the officials said.

They dismissed a report from a former US diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them. "He seems to have asked a few people if it was true and when they said 'no' he accepted it all," one official said. "We see no reason at all to change our assessment."

The fake documents were not behind that assessment and were not seen by MI6 until after they were denounced by the IAEA. If MI6 had seen them earlier, it would have immediately advised the Americans that they were fakes.

There had been a number of reports in America in particular suggesting that the fake documents - which came from another intelligence source - were passed on via MI6, the officials said. But this was not true.

"What they can't accuse MI6 of doing is passing anything on this to the CIA because it didn't have the fake documents and it was not allowed to pass on the intelligence it did have to anyone else."

[Sabertooth]

I've found it to be an excellent indicator for a whole set of common views expressed by what JimRob has neatly summarized as the paleocon/paleolibertarian/buchananite/rockwellian/anarchist/Democrat/French/German/Iraq axis.

That's not an accurate account of a summary that wasn't so neat. Here it is...

"And the anti-Republican/anti-Bush paleocon/paleolibertarian/buchananite/rockwellian/anarchist movement has combined with the Democrat/French/German/Iraq pro-terror axis."

This is another brush too broad.

There are times when I am in opposition to President Bush.
There are times when I think the GOP is clueless or craven.

I'm a registered Republican and vote the straight ticket every time out, though this next election is up in the air for me, as I think this President is leading this party in the wrong direction on a number of issues. If the election was tomorrow, I'd vote for him, but I become more pessimistic about the prospects by the day. Yet, I'm hardly in the "Democrat/French/German/Iraq pro-terror axis."

[r9etb]

One of the common tactics used on FR to "win" debates is to bait the opponent into taking a position that can be portrayed as anti-jewish. That is a guaranteed ticket to being banned and having your history sent down the memory hole by the moderators. R9etb attempted to use that tactic. It goes far deeper than simply using a phrase in an over-broad sense. The sad part is that it is R9etb themselves who demonstrate a lack of respect for jewish people. It shows immense disrespect to use them in that fashion.

LOL!!!!

What -- now I'm part of a big anti-jewish debate-squashing cabal? Not to mention that I've somehow made the transition to pluralhood (R9etb themselves).

I tell you what, though -- you're putting out a whole lot of effort on this. Why?

[r9etb]

Yet, I'm hardly in the "Democrat/French/German/Iraq pro-terror axis."

Then again, you say yourself that you don't go tossing out "neo-con" as if it really meant something. It really is an excellent indicator, though. Give it a shot sometime -- it's kinda fun.

[Sabertooth]

What I noticed was that you hijacked the discussion away from the original topic

The conversation went off-topic with an unwarranted insinuation of anti-Semitism, and not by OWK or Jolly Rodgers when they took exception to the charge.

r9etb, prehaps you can, with some finality, retract the comment about "neocon" = "jew-boy communists" in the eyes of those who use the term?

[Jolly Rodgers]

Go ahead and laugh it off. Maybe you'll have better luck next time you try that schtick.

[Sabertooth]

Then again, you say yourself that you don't go tossing out "neo-con" as if it really meant something.

No, I said I don't use it because I don't have a handle on what it means. It has no utility to me.

Since, however, I concede that I don't get the term "neocon," I'm not going to make hasty generalizations about those who do use it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Sorry, but your post does not show that Henry or Jefferson or George Mason believed taxation was theft. Or even that federal taxation was theft. Virginia had plenty of taxes before the constitution was in effect. New York's proto-RAT machine did too which was why it was opposed to allowing the federal government to collect tariff revenues that had gone to NY state.

Federalist taxes were tariffs, excise and tax on whiskey. But for the last all were imposed by states prior to the constitution. It is a LIE to claim our taxation today comes from federalist taxation principles.

Henry's hysterical opposition to the Constitution destroyed what could have been a great reputation. He, like Sam Adams, played a positive role at one time in our history but threw it all away to side with the corrupt state machines of their day rather than build a nation. Sad.

If quoting Patick Henry in his dotage is the best you can do, I would say you have nothing to argue with. However, the writings of the antis are funny, if nothing else, but are the screeching of delusionaries, not serious thinking by political geniuses like their opponents.

[Howlin]

Precisely. And he was a documented liar!

[r9etb]

r9etb, prehaps you can, with some finality, retract the comment about "neocon" = "jew-boy communists" in the eyes of those who use the term?

Actually, I can't really retract it because, having read enough from those who use the term (see again Mr. Buchanan), I believe there are many who actually hold that view. Had I not believed it, I wouldn't have said it.

It apparently doesn't apply to OWK or Jolly Rodgers, so I will happily apologize to them specifically.

That said, can we get off the topic, and your refereeing of it, and return to the cowardly French?

[Sabertooth]

I can't really retract it because, having read enough from those who use the term (see again Mr. Buchanan), I believe there are many who actually hold that view. Had I not believed it, I wouldn't have said it.

It apparently doesn't apply to OWK or Jolly Rodgers, so I will happily apologize to them specifically.

Tell me if I've misunderstood. You're going to let stand a bigoted comment, which you concede falsely accuses at least some people of bigotry, and amend it on an apologize-as-you-go basis?

Suppose someone actually said "neocons are jew-boy communists," and offered to periodically grant specific exceptions?

I don't think the latter approach is acceptable, nor is yours.

[Admin Moderator]

Knock off the profanity.

[r9etb]

The conversation is over.

[Amelia]

The conversation went off-topic with an unwarranted insinuation of anti-Semitism, and not by OWK or Jolly Rodgers when they took exception to the charge.

Actually, if you'll look back, the conversation started off topic about post #149 with a comment by OWK, and continued further afield when Jolly Rodgers chimed in at #181.

[tpaine]

What is true, not exaggerated and both is that Bush is the only leader who should even be remotely considered as suitable for sitting in the White House. There are NO RATS even clost to suitable, third party candidates aren't even on the radar screen they are such lightweights and the GOPers who might be suitable SUPPORT W. What does that tell you?

Tells me that we have a hopelessly corrupted political system wherein we are reduced to electing anyone even remotely considered suitable.
- In other words, - principled men who honestly state their political opinions cannot be elected.
A truly bizarre development in 'democracy' as practiced by the dual party rinocrat regime in power.

It might tell you that but it isn't true. No political system can be less corrupt, for very long, than the nation it serves.

Unsupported, meaningless observation. Our 'nation' is not corrupt.

If ours is so corrupt why isn't there one voice worth listening to with a hint of an idea how to change it?

There are thousands of articles posted at FR with "voices worth listing to", on exactly these subjects. You can't hear em, oddly enough.

It appears to me that the system is LESS corrupt than it used to be, even during the era of the founders. Naive sentimentality and romantic nostalgia aside, there is no "golden age" worth returning to as even a slight knowledge of American history reveals.

Depends if you believe in liberty for the common man I suppose. Barring slaves, I see vastly more personal freedom for more people in the historical record of 1800's america then in the 1900's.

Where have you seen any viable alternatives? Who has escaped the radar screen so as to not even be worth considering? Give us some alternatives to consider.

As I said, the political/media system is rigged to prevent viable alteratives.
- So far. The rise of the WWW and an economic collapse of the bread/circus merry go round may change this standoff.

We have plenty of inexperienced, unelectable, theoreticians without a scintilla of practical political experience. Certainly none even worth suppressing or repressing because of their "principles." Critics of Bush have yet to come up with a valid criticism outside of exaggerations and misinformation when not outright lies.

Ahh yes, somehow in your mind the 'critics of Bush' are responsible for our loss of liberties. - Bushwa poppycock.

[Sabertooth]

Actually, if you'll look back, the conversation started off topic about post #149 with a comment by OWK, and continued further afield when Jolly Rodgers chimed in at #181.

No, #149 and #181 were responses, harsh, to be sure, to a pretty inflammatory statement. Those responses are no more off-topic than the statement to which they responded.

r9etb made a slanderous post at #227, and has conceded, at the very least, that it's not true of eveyone to whom it applies. Yet he's declined to retract it, and as can be seen by his post at #292, feels the conversation is over.

Frankly, does it really matter what's "on-topic," when a slander has been posted? Don't those who've been slandered deserve the opportunity to confront the poster who did so?

Posting a slander and then claiming that rebuttals are "off-topic" strikes me as an example of hit-and-run debating.

[Amelia]

Have it your way. I've had my say and I'm not going to be a part of hijacking the thread any longer.

[Sabertooth]

Have it your way. I've had my say and I'm not going to be a part of hijacking the thread any longer.

If someone slanders you on a thread, you're not hijacking it simply taking exception to the post.

[anglian]

OBVIOUS FAKES


Once the IAEA got the documents -- which took months -- French nuclear scientist Jacques Bautes, head of the U.N. Iraq Nuclear Verification office, quickly saw they were fakes.

Top Stories - Reuters

U.N. Official: Fake Iraq Nuke Papers Were Crude
Tue Mar 25,

By Louis Charbonneau

[DoorGunner]

I think maybe my brain still wasn't in gear, when I gave this a flippant answer.

It (this story) is a serious and shocking Big Deal, and it deserves major headlines. Unfortuantely, as you said, it is being ignored.

Apologies.

DG

[Rennes Templar]

Just to show how influential you are!!

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_humor&Number=755849&page=&view=&sb=&o=&part=1&vc=1&t=-1