White House Faulted on Uranium Claim

Washington Post ^ | 12/24/03 | Walter Pincus

[bdeaner]

In the speech Jan. 28, President Bush cited British intelligence in asserting that Hussein had tried to buy uranium from an unnamed country in Africa. The White House later said the claim should not have been made, after reports that the intelligence community expressed doubts it was true. After reviewing the matter for several months, the intelligence board -- chaired by former national security adviser Brent Scowcroft -- has determined that there was "no deliberate effort to fabricate" a story, the source said. Instead, the source said, the board believes the White House was so anxious "to grab onto something affirmative" about Hussein's nuclear ambitions that it disregarded warnings from the intelligence community that the claim was questionable.

[RWR8189]

Has the claim from British intelligence yet been retracted?

[marron]

It is unclear to me why Bush bothered to cite British Intel, when Iraqi contacts with Niger are public knowledge. They are not secret, and are not even in dispute.

Iraq sent a trade mission to Niger in 1999, led by a senior diplomat. This visit was followed up by other attempts by an Iraqi businessman to set up meetings. This is public.

Niger, of course, has only one export of note.

So Joe Wilson's charge that Bush lied, is based on a verbal sleight of hand. Bush said that Iraq "sought" uranium. Wilson said that there was no evidence that any "sale" had taken place. But, of course, Bush never claimed a sale had occurred, just that Iraq had sought uranium. The contacts between the two governments are public knowledge, even Wilson had to have known about them, which means that Wilson's parsing of words is a Clintonesque lie.

Wilson is a liar, to be blunt.

Wilson made several other statements that are whoppers. His biggest lie is his claim to have investigated the affair. He didn't. He visited Niger and asked the Niger government if they had made any illegal sales. "Why, no, of course not". He asked the mining company the same question, and received the same answer. That is his "investigation". He did not interview truck drivers, or follow the trucks to their destination, he didn't stake out the port of Cotonou to see which ships they loaded on to, he didn't tap mine communications, or subpoena mine records, or even get the mine accountant drunk and ply him for information.

There was no investigation, if you read Wilson's statement carefully.

He goes on to say that illegal uranium sales would be impossible, so closely monitored is the industry by the IAEA. But the IAEA says that they do not have the personnel to monitor the industry in Niger, and furthermore have requested laws be put in place which would permit them to begin monitoring the industry; in other words, the laws are not now in place, and they are not now monitoring anything.

Another Wilson lie.

Others have pointed out that Wilson's charge came subsequent to his association with the Kerry campaign, something he only recently announced, but which reading the fine print reveals that he was a Kerry man at the time he launched his attack on Bush.

His attack doesn't mention Kerry, of course. But it does reveal something else. The apparent fact that the CIA had to send him to investigate the issue shows that the CIA is (1) politicized, sending a former Gore staffer and Clinton advisor (and present member of the Kerry campaign) on such a mission, (2) the CIA is bereft of assets of its own this uranium-producing country that has sold product to Iraq in the past, and is presently attracting interest as a possible Al Qaeda haven.

[Howlin]

Absolutely not. They stand by their original report.

[meenie]

The CIA is responsible to no one department in the government other than the National Security Agency. The funding is secret, the missions are secret. It has the reputation of being a loose cannon, accountable to no one. This type of organization has no business conducting foreign operations in an open society. It is not surprising that it has become a political servant to the particular administration in power. Relying on an agency such as this for the nation's intelligence responsibility is unwise and disasterous.

[Bluntpoint]

Saddam must find this report to be hilarious as he faces yet another day of electrodes being afixed to his testicles.

[Coop]

The CIA is responsible to no one department in the government other than the National Security Agency.

Are you claiming the CIA reports to the NSA? Uh uh. Why then, would the CIA director be the head of the U.S. intel community?

[Coop]

This type of organization has no business conducting foreign operations in an open society. It is not surprising that it has become a political servant to the particular administration in power. Relying on an agency such as this for the nation's intelligence responsibility is unwise and disasterous.

It strikes me as a MUCH wiser policy than anything you might come up with. Here's some light reading for you:

The National Security Act of 1947 The basic organization of the national security effort.

Report from The Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government The first governmental recognition of the existence of an intelligence community.

Executive Order 11905 The first presidential description of the IC.

The Intelligence Organization Act of 1992 The first definition of the IC by law.

Executive Order 12333 Guidelines for the conduct of intelligence activities.

[sauropod]

Good post.

[Puppage]

From the pages of The Washington Compost

[The Wizard]

pincus......need a better source....

[Maelstrom]

No

[chiller]

Let's see...hhmmmm....do I want a President who

A) dismisses lethal threats from a proven wacko and leaves us vunerable or

B) a President who errs on the side of caution. (not that I think he erred)

[sauropod]

Agree.

[Robert A Cook PE]

Nope!

Not only has it NOT been retracted, but British Intelligence re-investigated THEIR data, and said it was STILL VALID.

So, his original statement (that British Intelligence determined Saddamn was trying to get uranium from Africa (perhaps from the Congo, but not specifically from there) WAS TRUE, and IS TRUE.

[facedown]

Talk about beating a dead horse...

[snooker]

One can only wonder how Libya figures in this whole affair.

It is curious why Libya would be so quick to want to denounce WMDs after the Iraq attack.

Could Libya be where the Iraq WMDs went in the form of knowledge and money? Did Iraq fund Libya to help them make a nuke? Was Libya afraid we would know the truth once Saddam bit the dust?

[optimistically_conservative]

pincus......need a better source....

Yep, Pincus has a professional and personal stake now in WMD and terror ties to Iraq. A careful reading demonstrates that the report makes no assessment of whether Iraq did or did not seek Uranium from Africa, or the validity of the British intelligence provided to the US. It only makes a judgement about the organization in place to vet intelligence to be used in Presidential speeches and an anonymous source says the administration was "anxious" where Pincus used his own word - desperate.

[Only1choice____Freedom]

OK, so just where did that yellow cake come from?

I saw pictures of it. How did it get there?

[Alamo-Girl]

Indeed! Thanks for the ping!