Merit seen in claims that Iraq sought uranium from Niger

[quaoar]

This is from the LA Times:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-uranium15jul15,1,941974.story?coll=la-headlines-world

WASHINGTON — In reports released during the last week, U.S. and British panels sharply criticized their two governments for making ill-founded claims about Iraq's efforts to build weapons of mass destruction — claims that were the central rationale for the U.S.-led invasion of the country in March 2003.

But on at least one hotly debated issue — Iraq's purported interest in buying uranium from the West African nation of Niger — the two governments may have been on stronger footing than generally believed, both investigations found.

In a report issued Wednesday, the British commission of inquiry, headed by Lord Robin Butler, a retired civil service chief, found that Saddam Hussein's government had no usable stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons, contrary to assertions by President Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

But on the issue of Hussein's interest in nuclear weapons, the commission said, "The British government had intelligence from several different sources" indicating that Iraqi officials sought to buy uranium from Niger in 1999.

"The intelligence was credible," the report says.

Last week, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence excoriated U.S. intelligence agencies for assessments of Iraq's weapons programs that "either overstated or were not supported by" the evidence. But on the question of whether Iraq had sought uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, the committee found that the CIA's statement, in a 2002 National Intelligence Estimate, "was reasonable" at the time. The committee added, however, that the evidence behind the assertion turned out to be weak, and charged that the CIA failed to make that clear to policymakers.

< snip >

And further down, it says this:

The Senate report also accused Wilson of exaggerating his knowledge of forged documents that purported to be evidence of an Iraqi purchase of uranium. Wilson acknowledged that he might have "misspoken" on that issue.

[MallRat]

1. Goddamn, where are those indictments?

That bullshit from the FT article is starting to seep its way into the greater consciousness.

This pre-spin is going to gain traction pretty soon. Better hurry up, Mr. Fitzgerald, or you're going to be slimed in the court of public opinion.

-MR

[rooboy]

2. Then explain to me why they went after Valerie Plame...

and didn't stick with simply attacking Joe Wilson. Sounds like a pile of shit to me.

[still_one]

3. Let's see...

they have "credible" sources that they were trying to buy uranium from Niger

It is these credible sources that are responsible for killing 894 American soldiers, 15 plus wounded, and thousands of unknown civillians

[Chango]

4. This is more BS

What they are saying is that they got bad information from more than one source - and that makes it more credible.

The CIA and State Department expressed serious reservations about the Niger tale, and the White House stated that it should not have been included in the SOTU.

[daleo]

5. "The intelligence was credible"

It just wasn't true. This will be the new mantra. The accidental war, nobody to blame. But hey, no harm, no foul, right? Just a few tens of thousands of dead and maimed Iraqis (mostly civilians) and a few thousand soldiers (who were misled into thinking they were defending their country).

[Beetwasher]

6. This Is A Big Circle Jerk!

They won't reveal any of this "evidence" of the claims because they are all still relying on the same forged documents and then refer back and forth to eachother to back up their claims. It's a circle jerk.

[quaoar]

7. This article

Seems to answer soime questions:

http://www.iht.com/articles/529464.html

I see nothing in any of this for the GOP to be crowing about.

[Brotherjohn]

15. Yes, so it's still just the Brits' "word". They're staying mum based...

... on some deal with Washington, no doubt. "You cover my ass, and I'll cover yours." Repeated inability to produce any evidence still equals no evidence, no matter how many times they like to call it "evidence".

There's also the claim, again, that The former prime minister of Niger met with an Iraqi trade delegation (at the insitence of a businessman) to "discuss expanded commercial relations". Yeah, well, that means we need to pre-emptively invade, conquer and occupy a sovereign nation to the tune of thousands of lives and billions of dollars, destabilize the Mid-East if not the world, and greatly increase the terrorist threat to everyone on the planet.

I think it was worth it, don't you? (/SARCASM OFF)

[oly]

8. He had no gas, germs or nukes.

[Brotherjohn]

9. The Senate committee says "the evidence... was weak". Also...

... from what I have seen so far from the Financial Times article, the "evidence" they present basically amounts to an Iraqi trade representative simply asking Niger for increased trade relations, a move which was thought to mean "we want yellowcake".

As far as the bashing of Joe Wilson for his "exaggerating" his knowledge of forged documents, this is pure bulls***. Wilson made it very clear that he had NOT seen the documents in his original Op-Ed piece exposing his trip and his conclusions. The June 2003 WashPost article on Wilson's (still unnamed at that time) trip debunking the Niger claim specifically says that Wilson had NOT seen the documents at the time of his trip, although it says he spoke to the people in Niger whose signatures would have been required and found the story to be very unlikely. (I can't now find the original story, but here is the recent WaPost story that makes reference to this accusation from the Senate committe and the original article.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A39834-2004Jul9.html)

It was (and still is) widely known that the CIA didn't even have the documents until much later, and Wilson says so in his original Op-Ed. If he later spoke about the FACT that we now know they were forged, it is very easy to believe he mispoke in a way that may have left the impression that he knew so at the time of his trip. But he is very clear, and on the record, that he did NOT know this at the time.

As far as Wilson maybe/maybe not being right about his wife recommending him for the trip, that is irrelevant. Perhaps he was just trying to, I don't know, save her LIFE?! Protect his wife's name, and try to keep her out of this? What of the FACT that she was outed... perhaps the CIA's most important undercover operative, in that she was in charge of tracking and breaking up the nuclear black market. Perhaps the most crucial CIA operative to the very safety of each and every one of us in this age of potential nuclear terrorism. What of THAT, HMMMMNNN???!!!???

This is yet another red herring. Even the WH has admitted this information should not have been in the State of the Union address.

[calimary]

10. The Washington Post issued a correction about this...

WASHINGTON POST CORRECTIONS
Tuesday, July 13, 2004; Page A02
A July 10 story on a new Senate report on intelligence failures said that former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV told his contacts at the CIA that Iraq had tried to buy 400 tons of uranium from the African nation of Niger in 1998. In fact, it was Iran that was interested in making that purchase, but no contract was signed, according to the report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45430-2004Jul12.html

[Brotherjohn]

11. Yeah. That's an awful big "correction"... "Oh. It was IRAN that sought..

... 400 tons of uranium from Niger, NOT Iraq! Oops!!"

Note in the actual article as I cite above, they have the correction in the right side box, but the text STILL reads "Iraq" in the body of the article.

[Brotherjohn]

12. This also calls to mind what I read in the FT article: that Niger was...

... engaging in illicit nuclear materials dealing with "Libya, North Korea, Pakistan, Iran..." and Iraq was in there somewhere among the laundry list.

Sounds more like an indictment of Niger to me. What did they really have on Iraq? And from what I have read, Niger doesn't even have the capability to do this, as it's a multi-national consortium that controls trade of uranium (out of Niger's control).

[quaoar]

17. Thanks for posting that

Off to use it to flame some Republicans on another board. Tra la la.

[thecrow]

20. Ooops!

Time to invade IRAN then, that's all.
Darn, I hate when that happens!
:wtf:

[struggle4progress]

22. Iran? Iraq? Damn! I always get them confused! eom

[oly]

13. If this "new" information, whiich has been around for months and

months, BTW, is so credible, throw it on the table. Of course, it's not and * goes around talking of "capablility" in an attempt too cover for mega-lies used too invade Iraq.

[The_Casual_Observer]

14. Credible Evidence

There is credible evidence that the whole lot of them should be brought before the World Court on war crimes charges, and they know it. This is the only claim left that is standing between them and handcuffs.

[seasat]

16. My major question on the Niger Uranium

Assuming it's true, what in the hell was Sadaam going to do with it? He did not have the processing equipment. Why buy something that you can't use? He already had nuclear material in storage under the previous weapons inspection. If they had credible evidence that he was purchasing weapons grade plutonium then it would be a different story but all we have is that he was "possibly" purchasing a raw material with no means of putting it to any use.

[rustydog]

18. Saddam tried to buy uranium in 1999 from Niger but apparently FAILED

let's do the math...Sept 11th occurred in 2001.
Sept 11 caused by Saudis. not Iraqis or Nigerians.
bush takes office 2001. two years AFTER Saddam failed to purchase uranium from Niger.
Sept 11th occurs and we attack Afghanistan then turn our military might to Iraq.
we invade Iraq in 2003, 4 years after Saddam FAILED to purchase Uranium from Niger...how in the F*** is that an immediate threat to America?

[papau]

21. No evidence of asking to buy Uranium - Improve comercial ties are the

words in the report

Iraq already had 500 tons of yellow cake - and did not have a nuke program.

One person in Niger reported "Improve comercial ties" - plus their interpretation that this was code for Do you have yellow cake for sale - ignoring that of the two mines, one was flooded and the other controlled by France - This former gov minister reported this to the spy - Brit or CIA or Italian or whatever - and our CIA reviewed and said it was bull and that minister was a drunk -

and on DU our media's lies about this - or if you like - the GOP's lies that were not agreed to by the Dems on the committee - are repeated night after night.

Why?

[Generator]

19. Smells mighty fishy

Who knows WHAT the truth is? One things for certain, the Bushslime Misadministration isn't telling it. But this is from our great allies in Britain.

But here's what so ironic and smelly: the ONLY piece of intel that wasn't false is the one piece they admitted was FALSE before either of these reports?

IF there was any chance it was a viable intel, why out Plame and why the need to smear Wilson? Just cause he dared to mess with them, huh?
I know that's enought for them.

But oh irony if the Niger claims were really true (which I doubt highly) and they outed Plame for nothing(they could have stuck with just beating down Wilson if he's actually wrong) but that extra illegal and indefensible step is going to be their real downfall and not the weapons debacle. HA HA HA

They are the picture of irony perfected.

[Dr Fate]

23. So why did they FORGE DOCUMENTS? n/t

n/t