CIA warned the US Government about Iraq's claim...

[bbchris]

Interesting article from BBC online...



===========================================



White House 'warned over Iraq claim'



Soldiers are yet to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq

The CIA warned the US Government that claims about Iraq's nuclear ambitions were not true months before President Bush used them to make his case for war, the BBC has learned. Doubts about a claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from the African state of Niger were aired 10 months before Mr Bush included the allegation in his key State of the Union address this year, a CIA official has told the BBC.



On Tuesday, the White House for the first time officially acknowledged that the Niger claim was wrong and should not have been used in the president's State of the Union speech in January.



But the CIA official has said that a former US diplomat had already established the claim was false in March 2002 - and that the information had been passed on to government departments, including the White House, well before Mr Bush mentioned it in the speech.



Both President Bush and UK Prime Minister Tony Blair mentioned the claim, based on British intelligence, that Iraq was trying to get uranium from Niger as part of its attempt to build a nuclear weapons programme.



Mr Blair is under fire from British MPs about the credibility of a dossier of evidence, which set out his case for war.



And in the US, increasing doubts are being raised about the American use of intelligence.



Forged documents



In his keynote speech to Congress in January, the President said: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."



But the documents alleging a transaction were found to have been forged.



White House spokesman Ari Fleischer appeared to concede on Tuesday that the uranium claim in the State of the Union address was based on inaccurate information.



"The president's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake [uranium] from Niger," Mr Fleischer said.



"So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the president's broader statement."



But a former US diplomat, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, went on the record at the weekend to say that he had travelled to Africa to investigate the uranium claims and found no evidence to support them.



Now the CIA official has told the BBC that Mr Wilson's findings had been passed onto the White House as early as March 2002.



That means that the administration would have known nearly a year before the State of the Union address that the information was likely false.



In response, a US Government official told the BBC that the White House received hundreds of intelligence reports every day.



The official said there was no evidence that this specific cable about uranium had been passed on to the president.



But in Congress, Democrats are demanding a full investigation into the intelligence that underpinned the case for war.



They have demanded to know if President Bush used evidence that he knew to be weak or wrong.



British undeterred



The British Government has stood by its assertion, saying the forged documents were not the only evidence used to reach its conclusion that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium from Africa.





On Tuesday Mr Blair defended the assessment, telling a committee of MPs that it was not a "fantasy" and that the intelligence services themselves stood by the allegation.



"The evidence that we had that the Iraqi Government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from these so-called 'forged' documents, they came from separate intelligence," Mr Blair said.



However, Mr Blair did not specify what that separate intelligence was.

|Blah Blah|Thinking Out Loud|Jane Eliz||Talk Soup |

[debbie mannas]

but what about liars, murderers and thieves running your country responsible for THOUSANDS of deaths??



I STILL have not heard anyone address bush's or blairs lies which lead to the Iraq war, which they are now trying to cover up by pretending they never knew. Phoooeey. Here are people who lie, cheat, steal, and kill thousands, and people on this board are going to be voting for them next year. Do Iraqi lives matter less then?



Yet I have heard ad nauseum how Mike wants to bomb Larree's family, a statement which I have not seen anywhere on these boards. The same Larree who headlined another thread with lets bomb Saudi Arabia - well what of OTHER people's family and friends who live there?? Is your family the only one that counts?



The palestinias have Hamas as their terrorist group, no doubt about it. But the Israel govt IS a terrorist group. This is state sponsored terrorism, which the US funds to the tune of 3 billion a year. That makes the US govt. responsible for the wanton killing of palestinians. The only way to stop it is to pull ALL support out for Israel and let them fend for themselves. They sure have the firepower to do it.



The world is absolutely tired of how the US looks the other way at Israel's crimes and we have to deal with all the terrorist @#%$ that ensues because of it.



If Bush is so eager to go after terrorists (and put his money where his mouth is), then Israel is where he should start - in no uncertain terms. Otherwise he just comes across as a hypocrite. I believe that was the intent of Mike's post, though worded in a terribly incendiary fashion.



I assure you I'm no Jew hater or "nazi". And no, I'm not anti-american either. If the Indian or HK govt screw up I will be the first to scream, and I have. I simply call a spade a spade, and a duck a duck. And I DO NOT suck up to people to get favours or to become popular. Never have never will. I am not a saddam lover or a terrorist lover. People who kill are evil. People who fund the killers are also evil, whether they live in islamic or western nations.



Larree you come across as a Muslim hater, you seem to have dismissed the lives of the people in Iraq, Iran and pretty much everywhere Islamic. Haven't heard a peep out of you about Israel's policies, or the IRA or any other violent terrorist non-islamic group. And please stop crying about how the terrorists want YOU dead. YOU want thousands of innocent Iraqis (or whoever else) dead on some irrational belief that they want you dead. Dyu realise how you sound???



And you keep on harping about 9/11 as if you had some irrefutable proof (which nobody else has) that Iraq had something to do with it.



If you really want to scream about HATE and absolute atrocious behaviour, scream about the bush gang and their LIES, which actually DID lead to the deaths of thousands of people AND THEIR FAMILIES. That's a worthier way of spending your energies and helping the world instead of turn a blind eye to crimes cause you hate muslims (who want you dead).

[bbchris]

Debbie! You take my breath away.

|Blah Blah|Thinking Out Loud|Jane Eliz||Talk Soup |

[LarreeMP3]

If President Bush's reason for attacking Iraq was a hangnail I would have supported him. Saddam was evil and we kicked the evil out. That's a good thing. And now that Iran has missles capable of reaching Israel, I hope we take their leadership out next!

Edited by: LarreeMP3 at: 7/9/03 3:15 pm

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

If President Bush's reason for attacking Iraq was a hangnail I would have supported him.

---

I know you would.



Wether you or I or anyone else on this BB would support him and his hangnail argument for war is very much beside the point of the original post, though.



The point is that CIA warned the US Government (including the White House) in March 2002 to use the "Uranium from Niger" argument. Reason being that the claim was NOT TRUE.



Still the President used this in his State of The Nation speech.











Were is Ken Starr when he actually can be useful?

[bbchris]

Good point! How much 'untrue' info does Bush/Blair do? Ken Starr - didn't he prove that Clinton lied about a blowjob?

|Blah Blah|Thinking Out Loud|Jane Eliz||Talk Soup |

[LarreeMP3]

I don't hate Muslims. I hate the terrorists who want me dead and the governments that support them. And it's not MY fault that the terrorists who declared war on America are Islamic extremists.



Have a nice day. I am off to rehearsal with my new band. We're really good. Maybe I'll bust loose some of my old anti-war songs from my pre-9/11 peace and love hippy days tonight.



Re-elect President Bush in 2004!

[DreamTone7]

While I agree that this does not look good, I have to consider more than just what I am fed by the media. I believe I, as do others, have the RESPONSIBILITY to do so.



If I had operatives (spies) someplace where they were doing me good, and stood to continue to do that for the forseeable future, would I jeopardize that by declaring a source of information that might point them out to somebody who I'd rather not have find out? Blair may have good reasons for not declaring what his other sources of information are.......indeed, he may have said too much already. Espionage is a tricky game......if one really wants to know what is going on, it would do one well to think things out before jumping to any specific conclusions.



I agree that Saudi Arabia is a friend of the US for mutually benefitial reasons......and God help them if those reasons go away some how. It's just a game that they all play.....and you really have to have your ducks in a row before you can declare that the king has no clothes.

[bbchris]

Well put DreamTone7!

|Blah Blah|Thinking Out Loud|Jane Eliz||Talk Soup |

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

While I agree that this does not look good, I have to consider more than just what I am fed by the media. I believe I, as do others, have the RESPONSIBILITY to do so.

---

Quite so DT, I agree with you.



So why would the President use something in his speech based on forged dokuments that CIA had warned about using since the information in it was FALSE at all? Because he had other information about the same matter that actually made his claim TRUE? That dog don't hunt.



Why mention it in the speech (as opposed to only behind locked doors for the lawmakers breefing) at all if the source was so incredibly delicate ???

[debbie mannas]

we all knew about the forged docs at the time it was used. but its just hitting the US now (better later than never, I say).



The CIA says they warned them. Someone even WENT to Niger MONTHS before the check out whether there was any truth to the uranium tale, and found out there wasnt. Dyu really believe the administration didnt know? I believe they really thought that the american public was so stupid, that after a stolen presidency, BS about lower taxes helping the poor, parading the president as a war hero despite his going AWOL, yadayadayada, they could probably could pull off a couple of wars with impunity as well.



Fact is you have to choose between the following:



- the bush administration lied

- the bush administration is incompetent

- the bush administration is both of the above



I'd go with option (3).



If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and squawks like a duck it probably is a duck...

[DreamTone7]

Good questions Galmin. I wish I knew (or do I?)



Bush may have felt he needed some sort of "smoking gun" to appease the media (and, indirectly, the populace), and this was what he believed to be his best bet. But it will probably be years from now before we know (at least approximately) what actually went on.....sooner maybe, if we get a democrat in office (not that I'm voting for one).

[DreamTone7]

Didn't see your post Deb (slipped in ahead of me!)



I'd have to add option #4: We don't yet know enough to make an informed decision.

[debbie mannas]

(CBS) Senior administration officials tell CBS News the President’s mistaken claim that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa was included in his State of the Union address -- despite objections from the CIA.



Before the speech was delivered, the portions dealing with Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction were checked with the CIA for accuracy, reports CBS News National Security Correspondent David Martin.



CIA officials warned members of the President’s National Security Council staff the intelligence was not good enough to make the flat statement Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa.



The White House officials responded that a paper issued by the British government contained the unequivocal assertion: “Iraq has ... sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” As long as the statement was attributed to British Intelligence, the White House officials argued, it would be factually accurate. The CIA officials dropped their objections and that’s how it was delivered.



“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Mr. Bush said.



The statement was technically correct, since it accurately reflected the British paper. But the bottom line is the White House knowingly included in a presidential address information its own CIA had explicitly warned might not be true.



Today at a press conference during the President’s trip to Africa, Secretary of State Colin Powell portrayed it as an honest mistake.



“There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,” said Powell.



But eight days after the State of the Union, when Powell addressed the U.N., he deliberately left out any reference to Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa.



“I didn’t use the uranium at that point because I didn’t think that was sufficiently strong as evidence to present before the world,” Powell said.



That is exactly what CIA officials told the White House before the State of the Union. The top CIA official, Director George Tenet, was not involved in those discussions and apparently never warned the President he was on thin ice.



Secretary Powell said today he read the State of the Union speech before it was delivered and understood it had been seen and cleared by the intelligence community. But intelligence officials say the director of the CIA never saw the final draft.



www.cbsnews.com/stories/2...0449.shtml



**********************



What a difference a week makes!



If they knew the claim was not true they had a chance to retract it well in time. The fact is the SENATE voted for the war because of that claim.

[DreamTone7]

Could be something that Bush doesn't want the Senate to know......if you know anything about US politics, you'd know this happens ALL THE TIME!



'Til I hear something that "rings" true to my ears, I'll wait.....not that you couldn't be right Deb, but I'll wait just the same.