Let Them Eat Yellowcake - Reflections On A Failed Political Smear

PipeLineNews.org ^ | July 15, 2003 | William A. Mayer

[MEG33]

Good job on the ping!

[Grampa Dave]

Some excellent required reading on Nigerscam!

[Grampa Dave]

fyi

[Grampa Dave]

Another Louisville slugger to use on the whining third party scumbags trying to blame our president with this DNC created NigerScam.

[Grampa Dave]

Fyi and your indexing skills.

[Madcelt]

Thanks. Thought it might interest everyone. I tried to ping some others. I hope I got everyone. If I did'nt I apologise now.

[Spiff]

Go here. You will find stuff like this:

I - Components of Iraq's nuclear weapon programme

Acquisition of weapons usable material

Indigenous production and overt procurement of uranium compounds

Imported 4,006 kg of natural uranium and 6,005 kg of depleted uranium (DU) from Italy in 1979
Imported 1,767 kg low enriched uranium (LEU) from Italy in 1982
Imported almost 50 kg of highly enriched uranium (HEU) from Russia and France
Procured 429 drums containing 138,098 kg yellowcake from Portugal in 1980
Procured 487 drums containing 148,348 kg yellowcake from Portugal in 1982
Procured 432 drums containing 137,435 kg of yellowcake from Niger in 1981
Procured 426 drums containing 139,409 kg of yellowcake from Niger in 1982
Imported 24,260 kg of uranium dioxide from Brazil between 1981-82
Produced 109 tonnes of uranium in 168 tonnes of yellowcake at Al Qaim uranium recovery plant, which was constructed between 1982-84
Produced 420 drums containing 99,457 kg uranium dioxide at Al Jesira uranium conversion facility

Produced UF6 at Rashdiya Engineering and Design Centre
Processed uranium dioxide to produce UF4, uranium metal and UF6 at Tuwaitha Chemical Laboratories
Processed UO2  and yellowcake to produce UO2, U3O8, UO3, UO4, UF4, and uranium metal at Tuwaitha Experimental Research Laboratory for Fuel Fabrication
Processed UO2 to produce UCl4 at Tuwaitha Chemical Engineering Research laboratories

[Grampa Dave]

Maybe our DC Freepers can start yelling to McAwful, You're out of a job McAwful! Your Nigerscam failed!

[lysie]

Hmmm!!

Through the years I have learned that those who do the finger pointing ...without facts... are 99% of the time the ones who are doing what they accuse.

Great article. Thanks!

[cardinal4]

Has Bob been screaming about the Niger story?

[Grampa Dave]

The reverse scandal of NigerScam continues pour back on the rats who invented it and pushed it.

[MJY1288]

Thanks GrampaDave, It wont be long before this backfires real bad on the RATS, Soon the attention will be on Joseph Wilson and just what made him think he was qualified to investigate anything in Niger, or for that matter, anything for the CIA period.

The Ca CA is gonna hit the fan

[swheats]

2. They have ignored the very clear facts surrounding the case, facts which – far from supporting any assertion that it was the intention of the Bush administration to stampede a nation into war – reveal a very long, and independently verifiable, Iraqi pattern of seeking out and obtaining the most critical nuclear bomb making component – uranium - either on the open market or clandestinely from underground sources for nearly a quarter-of-a-century.

Maybe someone can explain why Saddam would need millions of dollars in his petty cash fund stashed around Iraq. Some of this stuff you really don't have to be a rocket scientist to connect the dots.

[Grampa Dave]

Please post what you have on Joseph C Wilson's wife!

[FairOpinion]

Here is an article in the UK Telegraph talking about the Brit Intel and the French:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$NQRIUVE5011OJQFIQMGSFFOAVCBQWIV0?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F07%2F14%2Fwdoss114.xml


French secret service 'kept CIA in the dark over Iraq and uranium'
By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 14/07/2003)


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."


Michael Smith's new book The Spying Game, which examines the intelligence behind the September dossier, is published by Politico's.

[cardinal4]

You have a smart daughter it would appear. I have never thought Mr Grahm was very presidential, either. Or any Dim declaring himself for 2004, for that matter!

[johnqueuepublic]

You mean aside from the fact that she turns tricks under freeway overpasses for 5 bucks??

[Grampa Dave]

This is a great site. This is respected third party documentation of the nuclear threat Iraq was until the regime change happened.

Thank you!

http://www.iaea.or.at/worldatom/Programmes/ActionTeam/nwp2.html

[Sub]

Might I ask a question? This 'article' refers to Iraq buying uranium between '79 and '83, then refers to constituting WMD from '82-'84. Are there any other dates given after this? Just asking because the Pres said the British learned Hussein "recently" tried to acquire the uranium. How does a reference to something 20 years old support the "recently" in his statement? And the "20 year" relationship between Iraq and Africa? That's odd. The story refers to two years that were twenty years ago. "Confidential sources"? This article is weak. If somebody referenced an article that referred to "confidential sources" and most didn't agree with it, they'd be saying "funny how they're always using 'confidential sources'" and dismiss it.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Thank you for flagging me to this. Bump for later read...