Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.

snip

Posted on Sun, Jul. 13, 2003

Was 'Nigerian uranium' story known to be false more than a year before the
State of the Union?
By Robert Scheer

They may have finally found the smoking gun that nails the culprit responsible
for the Iraq war.

Unfortunately, the incriminating evidence wasn't left in one of Saddam
Hussein's palaces but rather in Vice President Cheney's office.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the Gabonese Republic Joseph C. Wilson publicly
revealed last weekend that he was the mysterious envoy whom the CIA, under
pressure from Cheney, sent to Niger to investigate a document - now known to be
a crude forgery - that allegedly showed Iraq was trying to acquire enriched
uranium that might be used to build a nuclear bomb. Wilson found no basis for
the story, and nobody else has, either.

What is startling in Wilson's account, however, is that the CIA, the State
Department, the National Security Council, and the vice president's office were
all informed that the Niger-Iraq connection was phony. No one in the chain of
command disputed that this "evidence" of Iraq's revised nuclear weapons program
was a hoax.

Yet, nearly a year after Wilson reported the facts to Cheney and the U.S.
security apparatus, Bush, in his 2003 State of the Union speech, invoked the
fraudulent Iraq-Africa uranium connection as a major justification for rushing
the nation to war: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein
recently sought significant quantities of uranium in Africa."

What the President did not say was that the British were relying on their
intelligence white paper, which was based on the same false information that
Wilson and the U.S. ambassador to Niger had already debunked. "That information
was erroneous, and they knew about it well ahead of both the publication of the
British white paper and the President's State of the Union address," Wilson
said July 6 on Meet the Press.

Although a British Parliament report released Monday exonerated the Blair
government of deliberate distortion to justify invading Iraq, it urged the
foreign secretary to come clean as to when British officials were first told
that the Iraq-Niger allegation was based on forged documents. The report found
it "odd indeed" that the British government never came up with evidence to
support the contention.

And now, half a year after the State of the Union, the Bush administration has
said the allegation "should not have been included" in the speech.

But that administration has not told its public why it ignored the disclaimers
from its own intelligence sources. To believe that our President was not lying
to us, we must believe that this information did not find its way through
Cheney's office to the Oval Office.

In media interviews, Wilson said it was the vice president's questioning that
pushed the CIA to try to find a credible Iraqi nuclear threat after that agency
had determined there wasn't one. "I have little choice but to conclude that
some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted
to exaggerate the Iraqi threat," Wilson wrote in acolumn in the July 6 New York
Times. "A legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false
pretenses."

In a Washington Post interview, Wilson added, "It really comes down to the
administration misrepresenting the facts on an issue that was a fundamental
justification for going to war. It begs the question: What else are they lying
about?"

Those are the carefully chosen words of a 23-year career diplomat who, as the
top U.S. official in Baghdad in 1990, was praised by former President Bush for
his role as the last American to confront Saddam face-to-face after the
dictator invaded Kuwait. In a cable to Baghdad, the President told Wilson:
"What you are doing day in and day out under the most trying conditions is
truly inspiring. Keep fighting the good fight."

As Wilson observed wryly, "I guess he didn't realize that one of these days I
would carry that fight against his son's administration."

And that fight remains the good fight. This is not some minor dispute over a
footnote to history but rather raises the possibility of one of the most
egregious misrepresentations by a U.S. administration. What could be more
cynical and impeachable than fabricating a threat of rogue nations or
terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons and using that to sell a war?

''There is no greater threat that we face as a nation," Wilson told NBC, "than
the threat of weapons of mass destruction in the hands of nonstate actors or
international terrorists. And if we've prosecuted a war for reasons other than
that, using weapons of mass destruction as cover for that, then I think we've
done a great disservice to the weapons-of-mass-destruction threat."

The world is outraged at this pattern of lies used to justify the Iraq
invasion, but the U.S. public still seems numb to the dangers of government by
deceit.

Indeed, in his column this week, William Safire, a speechwriter for Richard
Nixon, channeled the voice of his former boss to reassure Republicans that the
public easily could be conned through the next election.

Far be it for me to lecture either Safire or a reincarnated Nixon as to the
ease of deceiving the electorate, but as we learned from the Nixon disgrace,
lies have a way of unraveling, and the truth will out, even if it's after the
next election.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Robert Scheer is a columnist for the Los Angeles Times.

email this | print this










Shopping & Services


Find a Job, a Car,
an Apartment,
a Home, and more...























Help | Contact Us | Archives | Place an Ad | Newspaper Subscriptions
About Philly.com | About Realcities Network | Terms of Use & Privacy Statement
| About Knight Ridder | Copyright

Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.


afrol News, 8 March - The documents produced by the US and UK governments
alleging a contact between the Nigerien and the Iraqi governments with the aim
of exporting uranium are considered fabrications, according to Mohamed
ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The Nigerien government thus comes clean on US-UK claims.

US officials in December publicly claimed that Niger signed an agreement in
year 2000 to sell Iraq 500 metric tons of a concentrated form of uranium known
as yellowcake. The British government also presented the IAEA with "Nigerian
state documents" that were to prove Nigerien-Iraqi attempts to trade in uranium
after the UN embargo on Iraq strictly forbade this. This "documentation" has
been a key element in the US-UK quest to prove Iraq is still trying to develop
nuclear arms.

Niger supplied Iraq with yellowcake for its nuclear program in the 1980s, which
at that time was legal. During the last months, the British and American
governments have tried to prove that Niger recently agreed to resume those
shipments, illegal since 1991. US officials claim that Iraq imported uranium
from Niger even after 1998 and that more shipments were planned in 2000.



Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA)

Officials from Niger have however strongly denied these claims. Niger's former
Minister of Mining and Energy told the press these charges were "lies". He
added that Niger always had cleared their uranium sales with the IAEA,
complying with their so-called "red list" that bans certain countries from
buying uranium. Also, uranium sales could not be made without the knowledge of
the French-owned company Cogema, which operates uranium mining in Niger, the
ex-Minister said.

Nigerien officials have also denied there have been made uranium shipments to
Iraq in the 1980s. The UN weapon inspectors in Iraq however have confirmed that
Niger sold concentrated uranium to Iraq on two occasions; one shipment in 1981
and a second shipment in 1982.

If Niger is found to have sold uranium to Iraq after the 1991 embargo, the
Niamey government would be found guilty of the most serious violation of the
sanction imposed on Iraq. This would further question Niger's reliability when
it comes to sell uranium to dubious recipients, such as terrorists. Niger thus
easily could be placed in the US category of "rough states".

IAEA-leader Mohamed ElBaradei now however totally cleans Niger's name and
reputation, regarding the US-UK initiative to put the country in connection
with Baghdad's alleged ongoing programmes of developing weapons of mass
destruction. Mr ElBaradei concluded the documentation presented was not
authentic. "We have therefore concluded that these specific allegations were
unfounded," he said.

The IAEA indeed casts doubts on the allegations Iraq is still trying to develop
nuclear weapons altogether. "After three months of intrusive inspections, we
have to date found no evidence or plausible indication of the revival of a
nuclear weapons programme in Iraq," Mr ElBaradei yesterday told the UN Security
Council.

The case made against Iraq regarding a nuclear weapons programme more and more
seems to have been fabricated in London and Washington. The allegations first
surfaced in London, in a British government dossier of 24 September 2002.
Without naming a source country, the British document claimed Iraq had recently
bought uranium to renew its nuclear weapons programme.

On 19 December, Niger for the first time was launched as the source of new
Iraqi uranium purchases. A US State Department paper, elaborating on the
British claims, focused on Niger, the world's third largest uranium producer
after Canada and Australia, and the foremost Muslim state producing uranium.

According to IAEA officials, Western intelligence agencies had provided them
with documents consisting of correspondence between Iraqi and Nigerien
government officials. After comparing the letters with official documents of
the Niger government, however, IAEA discovered the "documents" were
falsifications produced in London and Washington. The forgery obviously had
been made in a dilettante way, with signatures, names and letterheads not
corresponding with official Nigerien state documents.

Mr ElBaradei publicly said his inspectors had concluded the documents provided
by the US and UK "were, in fact, not authentic" after scrutinising "the form,
format, contents and signatures ... of the alleged procurement-related
documentation." There were therefore no indications of "recent uranium
transactions between Iraq and the Niger."

Meanwhile, the Nigerien government can calm down again after the substantial
threat to its good reputation has been completely dismissed. Niger, the world's
second poorest country, is heavily dependent on Western aid and on its uranium
exports.

Still, the dismissal of the claims against Niger will leave an uneasy calm in
Niamey government offices. The government will ask itself why Niger's name and
reputation was being sacrificed to build a case against Iraq.

The new stories circulating about how the forged papers came into being should
sound comforting; they had been sold to an Italian intelligence agent by a con
man some time ago, with the simple aim of making easy money. The US and UK
intelligence services had of course not been involved, anonymous sources now
say. This seems a very convenient version to all parties implied.

Thursday, 26 September, 2002, 12:00 GMT 13:00 UK
S Africa denies Iraq nuclear link


Britain says Iraq wanted African uranium



By Alistair Leithead
BBC, Cape Town


The South African government says categorically it has not been approached to
sell uranium to Iraq.
South Africa's deputy foreign minister Aziz Pahad says his government will ask
the British Government to clarify "vague statements" made in Prime Minister
Tony Blair's Iraq dossier published this week.

Mr Pahad said his government had not been approached, but would be
investigating suggestions that Iraq tried to buy nuclear materials in Africa.

Africa's uranium production in 2001
Niger - 3,096 tonnes
Namibia - 2,239 tonnes
South Africa - 898 tonnes
Source: Uranium Information Centre
The dossier on Iraq's nuclear capability and intentions said that Iraq had
tried to obtain "significant quantities" of uranium from Africa.

South Africa is the only country on the continent which has the capacity to
enrich uranium.

Gabon, Niger and Namibia have all exported unprocessed uranium oxide.

South Africa produces the mineral, but has a domestic nuclear energy and
research programme.

Finger pointed at South Africa

The dossier published by the British Government this week said Saddam Hussein
had tried to acquire significant quantities of uranium from Africa, but did not
provide any further evidence.

Aziz Pahad said the finger had been pointed at South Africa as the only country
on the continent with the capacity to enrich uranium.



He said categorically the government had not supplied uranium to Iraq, nor had
it been approached, and he would actively be seeking clarification from Britain
on the vague statements made in the dossier.

Mr Pahad cited the report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which he
said showed the dossier had no substance with regard to nuclear material
acquisitions in Africa.

He said that, because of the strict regime in South Africa, it would be very
difficult for private companies within the country to be involved in uranium
trading.


WATCH/LISTEN

ON THIS STORY

Mark Gwozdecky, International Atomic Energy Agency
"One would have to beat the sanctions regime in order to do something like
this"






Full coverage


Key stories
US clerics oppose war
Saudi war warning
Iraq polio campaign
'New Europe' hits back


Analysis
Blair's political troubles
US and UK regroup
Blix tiptoes tightrope

CLICKABLE GUIDE

Global voices on Iraq

BBC WORLD SERVICE

News in Arabic

AUDIO VIDEO

Inspectors' report: Point by point

TALKING POINT

Your views on inspectors' report


See also:


24 Sep 02 | Africa
Iraq 'sought African uranium'

24 Sep 02 | Politics
Iraq weapons dossier at-a-glance

24 Sep 02 | Politics
Blair's case for the prosecution

23 Sep 02 | Panorama
On the trail of Saddam

20 Sep 02 | Business
Bangui denies Libya deal

02 Mar 01 | Correspondent
Saddam's bomb

Internet links:


BBC Focus on Africa
BBC Network Africa
Downing Street
United Nations
Africa Information site
Uranium Information Centre
Iraqi mission to the UN

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

Top Africa stories now:


Ebola outbreak confirmed in Congo

Malawi minister reveals Aids trauma

Kenyan president opens parliament

DR Congo rebels go on trial

Nigerian ID scheme kicks off

Tunisian internet crackdown

Wild pigs threaten Somali peace talks

Anti-French protests in Ivory Coast


Links to more Africa stories are at the foot of the page.

Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.


I should have used the phrase "already been informed the document was a
forgery" Sorry. BTW, they were informed that the document was a forgery by the
CIA, the same people that Bush says cleared his speech.




CIA asked No 10 to drop uranium claim
By Toby Harnden in Washington
(Filed: 12/07/2003)


The CIA tried to persuade the British Government to drop a claim that Saddam
Hussein attempted to buy uranium in Africa but was told that MI6 had its own
intelligence backing up the report, it emerged yesterday.

As as the row in Washington over weapons of mass destruction deepened,
President George W Bush said his State of the Union address, which mentioned
the British claim, was vetted by the CIA. "I gave a speech to the nation that
was cleared by the intelligence service," Mr Bush said in Uganda. In the
address in January he said: "The British Government has learnt that Saddam
Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

According to officials who spoke to the Washington Post, the CIA attempted four
months earlier to persuade Downing Street that the claim, which the White House
stated this week was false, was dubious.

"We consulted about the [British intelligence] paper and recommended against
using that material," a senior Bush administration official told the newspaper.
It was subsequently included in an intelligence dossier released by No 10.

Although a CIA paper being compiled at the time mentioned Iraqi attempts to buy
uranium from three African countries, the agency told the British that US State
Department analysts had cast doubt on any involvement by Niger.

Downing Street has stuck by its claim there was a link between Niger and Iraqi
attempts to procure uranium, despite a letter supposedly relating to
negotiations proving a forgery. Officials said the CIA has not seen further
British intelligence material on Niger, despite its close co-operation with
MI6.

The gap between Downing Street and the White House is being exploited by Mr
Bush's Democratic opponents and Tony Blair's critics in Britain. It threatens
to complicate the Prime Minister's visit to Washington next week.

Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, who did not include a reference to
uranium-buying in Africa in his presentation of Iraq evidence to the United
Nations Security Council, has been lukewarm in his defence of the inclusion of
the claim in Mr Bush's address.

The CIA leak to the Washington Post appeared to be an attempt by the agency to
distance itself from the claim. George Tenet, the CIA director, was already
under pressure to step down after the intelligence failings of September 11.

But the White House yesterday placed the CIA firmly in the decision-making
process over what was included in the State of the Union address. The CIA
cleared the speech "in its entirety", said Condoleezza Rice, Mr Bush's national
security adviser.

"The CIA cleared on it," she said. "There was even some discussion on that
specific sentence, so that it reflected better what the CIA thought. And the
speech was cleared.

"What we've said subsequently is, knowing what we now know, that some of the
Niger documents were apparently forged, we wouldn't have put this in the
president's speech. But that's knowing what we know now."

Mr Tenet admitted last night that he had been wrong to allow Mr Bush to say
that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from Africa. "These 16 words should never
have been included in the text written for the President. This was a mistake,"
Mr Tenet said.

The phrase "the British Government has learnt" was apparently inserted late in
the speech-writing process. Bush administration officials said this did not
indicate discomfort with the claim but was "because they were the first to say
it publicly in their September paper".

I agree with every one of GW's statements you cite, just not *your* opinions
of them.



I can see that. Those statements are so ambivalent that they could mean
anything.
When Bush refers to "weapons of ultimate terror" he probably means slingshots
and water balloons.

When he associates the word "nuclear" repeatedly with SH, he's not trying to
manipulate anybody or anything, he's just exercising the two words for the
novelty of the experience.

Care to share *your* opinions of the same statements, or is your specialty just
sniping at the opinions of others?

"Joe" wrote in message
...


and the Brits had already denounced the document as a
forgery!

The Brits NEVER backed away from their Sadamm/Niger/Uranium intelligence.
Blair has stated that the forged document is not the basis of the intel
and
insists the intel they do have is solid.


Blair *HAS* to say things like that. He's under attack in the same way Bush
is here.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.

snip

Posted on Sun, Jul. 13, 2003

Was 'Nigerian uranium' story known to be false more than a year before the
State of the Union?
By Robert Scheer


snip

Sorry, I did not see where it said that the British had already denounced
the document as a forgery prior to the SOTUS.







è

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.


snip

Again, nowhere does it state that the British had already denounced the
document as a forgery prior to the SOTUS

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Really? Help a fella out and point me at 1 that states the British "had
already denounced the document as a
forgery" prior to the SOTUS.


snip

Again, nowhere does it state that the British had already denounced the
document as a forgery prior to the SOTUS

I did find the following excepts interesting-

I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with
dozens of
people: current government officials, former government officials, people
associated with the country's uranium business. It did not take long to
conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever
taken
place.

Wow! Eight days drinking sweet mint tea talking with current and former
officials?
Now that's some solid intel!
Hopefully the CIA would not rely *solely* on this type of intel

I was convinced before the war that the threat of weapons of mass
destruction
in the hands of Saddam Hussein required a vigorous and sustained
international
response to disarm him. Iraq possessed and had used chemical weapons; it
had an
active biological weapons program and quite possibly a nuclear research
program
- all of which were in violation of United Nations resolutions. Having
encountered Mr. Hussein and his thugs in the run-up to the Persian Gulf
war of
1991, I was only too aware of the dangers he posed.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
Thursday, 26 September, 2002, 12:00 GMT 13:00 UK
S Africa denies Iraq nuclear link



snip

Again, nowhere does it state that the British had already denounced the
document as a forgery prior to the SOTUS