Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Declassified NIE Does Not Mention Uranium Procurement

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
Torn_Scorned_Ignored Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 12:50 PM
Original message
Declassified NIE Does Not Mention Uranium Procurement
The declassified portions of the National Intelligence Estimate from October, 2002 does not mention attempts to procure uranium from Africa.

http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/h072103.html

...Although we assess that Saddam does not yet have nuclear
weapons or sufficient material to make any, he remains intent
on acquiring them. Most agencies assess that Baghdad started
reconstituting its nuclear program about the time that UNSCOM
inspectors departed--December 1998.
How quickly Iraq will obtain its first nuclear weapon
depends on when it acquires sufficient weapons-grade fissile
material.
If Baghdad acquires sufficient fissile material from abroad
it could make a nuclear weapon within several months to a
year.
Without such material from abroad, Iraq probably would not
be able to make a weapon until 2007 to 2009, owing to
inexperience in building and operating centrifuge facilities
to produce highly enriched uranium and challenges in
procuring the necessary equipment and expertise.

If this document was declassified for the purpose of "the public's right to know" about the Niger connection, Niger or Africa are not in this document. Did Libby disclose information that actually was classified? Are we being lied to again?

More from the NIE:
...Most agencies believe that Saddam's personal interest in
and Iraq's aggressive attempts to obtain high-strength
aluminum tubes for centrifuge rotors--as well as Iraq's
attempts to acquire magnets, high-speed balancing machines,
and machine tools--provide compelling evidence that Saddam is
reconstituting a uranium enrichment effort for Baghdad's
nuclear weapons program. (DOE agrees that reconstitution of
the nuclear program is underway but assesses that the tubes
probably are not part of the program.)
Iraq's efforts to re-establish and enhance its cadre of
weapons personnel as well as activities at several suspect
nuclear sites further indicate that reconstitution is
underway.


State/INR Alternative View

. . . acquire nuclear weapons. Iraq may be doing so, but
INR considers the available evidence inadequate to support
such a judgment. Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has
launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear
weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an
effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors or to
project a timeline for the completion of activities it does
not now see happening. As a result, INR is unable to predict
when Iraq could acquire a nuclear device or weapon.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
pk_du Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
1. Its worse than that ( for Bush/Cheney/Libby) - it DOES
..the very last sentence says..

<snip>

Finally, the claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in
Africa are, in INR's assessment, highly dubious.

<snip>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Igel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-15-06 04:19 PM
Response to Original message
2. ??
Edited on Sat Apr-15-06 04:20 PM by igil
It's in both http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/docs/nie_judgments.pdf (p. 7) and the link you reference. Not in the key judgments, but nobody (now) claims they were, since Fitzgerald backed off from claiming Libby thought he took a abstract of the key judgments that contained that assertion (whew). The info about the attempts is also given a 'low confidence' rating.

Since * didn't actually say Niger, and the British in 2003 said they didn't rely on the Niger forgeries, I assume the '16 words' were actually referring to the Somalia and Congo claims.

On edit: inclusion of the text, since it's not copyrighted:
----
Iraq has about 550 metric tons of yellowcake and low-
enriched uranium at Tuwaitha, which is inspected annually by
the IAEA, Iraq also began vigorously trying to procure
uranium ore and yellowcake; acquiring either would shorten
the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons.
A foreign government service reported that as of early
2001, Niger planned to send several tons of ``pure uranium''
(probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and
Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this
deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do
not know the status of this arrangement.
Reports indicate Iraq also has sought uranium ore from
Somalia and possibly the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring
uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources. Reports
suggest Iraq is shifting from domestic mining and milling of
uranium to foreign acquisition. Iraq possesses significant
phosphate deposits, from which uranium had been chemically
extracted before Operation Desert Storm. Intelligence
information on whether nuclear-related phosphate mining and/
or processing has been reestablished is inconclusive,
however.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 03:35 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC