Posted on 07/13/2003 5:14:06 PM PDT by Pokey78
The French secret service is believed to have refused to allow MI6 to give the Americans "credible" intelligence showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, US intelligence sources said yesterday.
MI6 had more than one "different and credible" piece of intelligence to show that Iraq was attempting to buy the ore, known as yellowcake, British officials insisted. But it was given to them by at least one and possibly two intelligence services and, under the rules governing cooperation, it could not be shared with anyone else without the originator's permission.
US intelligence sources believe that the most likely source of the MI6 intelligence was the French secret service, the DGSE. Niger is a former French colony and its uranium mines are run by a French company that comes under the control of the French Atomic Energy Commission.
A further factor in the refusal to hand over the information might have been concern that the US administration's willingness to publicise intelligence might lead to sources being inadvertently disclosed.
US sources also point out that the French government was vehemently opposed to the war with Iraq and so suggest that it would have been instinctively against the idea of passing on the intelligence.
British sources yesterday dismissed suggestions of a row between MI6 and the CIA on the issue. However, they admitted being surprised that George Tenet, the CIA director, had apologised to President George W Bush for allowing him to cite the British government and its claim that Saddam had sought to acquire uranium from Africa in his State of the Union speech last October.
The apology follows the International Atomic Energy Authority's dismissal of documents given to it by the CIA, which purported to prove the link, as fakes.
Those documents have been widely identified with last September's British dossier on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, which said Saddam Hussein was trying to buy uranium ore from an unnamed country in Africa.
British officials admitted that the country was Niger but insisted that the intelligence behind it was genuine and had nothing to do with the fake documents. It was convincing and they were sticking with it, the officials said.
They dismissed a report from a former US diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them. "He seems to have asked a few people if it was true and when they said 'no' he accepted it all," one official said. "We see no reason at all to change our assessment."
The fake documents were not behind that assessment and were not seen by MI6 until after they were denounced by the IAEA. If MI6 had seen them earlier, it would have immediately advised the Americans that they were fakes.
There had been a number of reports in America in particular suggesting that the fake documents - which came from another intelligence source - were passed on via MI6, the officials said. But this was not true.
"What they can't accuse MI6 of doing is passing anything on this to the CIA because it didn't have the fake documents and it was not allowed to pass on the intelligence it did have to anyone else."
Come on now Jim...you don't really believe this, do you? Please tell me you're being facetious.
The paleocon/paleolibertarian/buchananite/rockwellian/anarchist movement is equally opposed to the war and they willingly join with the communist led A.N.S.W.E.R International group to lobby/write/argue/protest against it, using the very same propaganda, disinformation, and democrat talking points and IMHO this makes them anti-America.Not this libertarian. Read the following: Iraq: Lessons Of Terror Learned
No, the goals of the paleos--such as I consider myself--are certainly NOT the same as liberals. I'll limit myself to those groups and let someone else address the others you lumped together (a dangerous unfair thing in and of itself, but never mind). And the groups are not parellel, nor do they have remotely similar headings.
They want President Bush out, , they want the Republicans defeated
Undoubtedly true of the liberal democrats, because he is not a Republican; paleos don't so much want Bush out, as they want a President that will restore what is possible of the Constitutional Republic, including a sensible foreign policy, a trade policy that puts America first, etc., in. Doesn't matter if that person is Bush, some other Repuiblican, a Libertarian, or whomever. There is no PaleoConservative Party.
they want America out of the Middle East
Paleos want, to oversimplify, for America to avoid foreign entanglements and enchanting alliances. I don't think liberals would pull the US out of the Middle East; they object to President Bush's leading us the because he's a Republican and is taking the glory. If, God forbid, Al Gore had been President, I would wager we STILL would be in the Middle East, although with liberal spin, and all the trappings. The end result would be the same: American troops posted indefinitely in a hostile region; like the Balkans.
and they want FR DEAD
Probably true of liberals, as they think the 1st Amendment applies only to them, but I for one like FR and would not want to see it go away. I don't know how much of the rest of the paleo world pays much attention to FR.
Of course. There are laws. They limit freedom.
Do you think I should have the freedom to look up any LF jihadist poster and follow my inclinations?
I didn't think so ;).
Ironically, my original post wasn't even entirely serious. I got sucked into a finger-pointing match -- my mistake -- and said things I should not have said. However, it was foolish to insist that the sweeping statement was true, and I should not have done so. I therefore retract the sweeping statement I made.
However.
While I did overreach when I made the comment, there are those who make the connections -- for example, equating neo-cons and Jews; or (as Ron Paul recently did), neo-cons and communists. And of course those who make the full connection.
In that vein, it is instructive to look at a Google search on the keywords neo con Israel jew.
You'll note that there are indeed a lot of nasty anti-semetic hits. There are also sites that discuss the issue in a less rabid form, but nevertheless make the same connection. Which is to say, there is a significant segment for whom "neo-con" does indeed mean "Jew", "Communist," or both. So my comment was not without some truth.
There are also those who, like our friend Jolly, toss "neo-con" around as an insult, and even as a tactic for stopping debate (I seem to recall being accused of much the same thing). Given the size of the audience that is receptive to the less wholesome nuances of "neo-con", let me suggest that those who would use the term in polite conversation might do well to reconsider, lest they be once again lumped in with the nice folks at stormfront.org.
Fair enough.
Ironically, my original post wasn't even entirely serious.
Oh, I see. The old, "I was just kidding" excuse.
I got sucked into a finger-pointing match...
You got suckered? There you were innocently minding your own business when someone came along and suckered you into making the anti-semitic outburst? Okey-dokey.
... -- my mistake -- and said things I should not have said.
Now I'm beginning to wonder which part of what you said you are regretting.
However, it was foolish to insist that the sweeping statement was true, and I should not have done so. I therefore retract the sweeping statement I made.
The sweeping statement... So, is it the fact that you appealed to anti-semitism that bothers you, or the fact that you used it overbroadly that bothers you?
However.
An apology with a "but" is no apology at all. It is a rationalization for having done something you know was wrong, but just can't shake.
While I did overreach when I made the comment, there are those who make the connections -- for example, equating neo-cons and Jews; or (as Ron Paul recently did), neo-cons and communists. And of course those who make the full connection.
So, it was the overreaching you regret, not that you resorted to the tactic in the first place.
In that vein, it is instructive to look at a Google search on the keywords neo con Israel jew.
And to confirm that point, you're going to go right back and occupy the same ground that you are feigning an apology for.
You'll note that there are indeed a lot of nasty anti-semetic hits. There are also sites that discuss the issue in a less rabid form, but nevertheless make the same connection. Which is to say, there is a significant segment for whom "neo-con" does indeed mean "Jew", "Communist," or both. So my comment was not without some truth.
Uh-huh. Let us know your true feelings. Don't hold back.
There are also those who, like our friend Jolly, toss "neo-con" around as an insult, and even as a tactic for stopping debate (I seem to recall being accused of much the same thing). Given the size of the audience that is receptive to the less wholesome nuances of "neo-con", let me suggest that those who would use the term in polite conversation might do well to reconsider, lest they be once again lumped in with the nice folks at stormfront.org.
Oh, yes. There it is. Your true self escapes again in all its perverted glory. Here's a tip: When apologizing for something, its usually best not to conclude by repeating that very same thing over again. ;-) Have a nice day.
Is your inclination to use violence against those who speak words you don't like?
Who mentioned violence? Plenty of other protections under the law.
Be grateful that there is law. Without it, you'd be meat.
Oh, I see. The old, "I was just kidding" excuse.
I'm telling the truth. Accept it or not, but that's your problem. FWIW, I originally thought of spelling it "joo-boy commonists," to give it the proper red-neck feel.
You got suckered?
No, I got "sucked into," that is drawn into a finger-pointing contest, with you, following the post in question.
As for the rest, you're just continuing the finger-pointing. That's your problem, and I'll leave you to it.
So, what is it that you are inclined to do to LF jihadists that is against the law, but is not violent?
Be grateful that there is law. Without it, you'd be meat.
Meaning what, specifically?
Hehehe. You'd just dream bad dreams. Now, would I do that to you? Anyway, the question is moot, since I'm a great fan of the law.
Meaning what, specifically?
Meaning that without the law you'd have anarchy - which is probably desirable for you, given your nick. However, it would mean that you'd be prey to whoever might want your property, whoever didn't like you, or whoever might just be crazy. Life in those conditions, according to historians, was "nasty, brutish and short". Kinda like in muslim societies, in fact.
The paleocon/paleolibertarian/buchananite/rockwellian/anarchist movement rabidly and irrationally hates and attacks the Republican Party at every opportunity.
Well said. Thank you.
You fancy yourself the master of the veiled and ambiguous threat. You like to lay it out there and the play dumb when called on it. The problem is, it is so transparent it only demonstrates your immaturity and the undercurrent of impotence that yearns for the ability to hurt people.
Meaning that without the law you'd have anarchy - which is probably desirable for you, given your nick. However, it would mean that you'd be prey to whoever might want your property, whoever didn't like you, or whoever might just be crazy. Life in those conditions, according to historians, was "nasty, brutish and short". Kinda like in muslim societies, in fact.
Attack anarchy all you like. Heck, attack my handle if you like, too. It just further confirms your lack of maturity. All that bravado and you can't even get it pointed in the right direction. Oh, and I like the shot at muslims. That's rich. Puts you right up there with the other racist. R9etb. Good going. Have you any more pre-pubescent gems to throw out?
Do I now? Really??
Attack anarchy all you like
If I was to attack anarchy all it deserved, I couldn't do anything else for a week. Suffice to say that anarchists have traditionally been terrorists and bomb-throwers, and anarchy itself is a perpetual state of war.
Heck, attack my handle if you like, too
You really should do something about that paranoia. Have you considered medication? I was just commenting that your choice of handle makes it likely that you have, in fact, a soft spot for anarchy and anarchists. I'm really not suggesting that you're the author of the "cookbook" or the black-hooded guy with that "shoot their officers" banner.
Feel free to read your Bakunin and flap your little black flag all you want ;)).
Oh, and I like the shot at muslims. That's rich. Puts you right up there with the other racist.
You are a racist for making an observation about muslim societies? There's a muslim race??
Actually, that kind of delusion sounds almost racist to me....
Actually, it won't be. Except maybe if your pals from LF manage to invade the place to an unprecedented degree without being noticed. Trust me on that ;). Now, feel free to educate us on how muslims are a "race".
Anyway, do you have anything rational to say at all? Like what we were discussing, the role (and rule) of law? Or do you have to air the pot out of your head first?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.