IRAQ SOUGHT 500 TONS OF URANIUM FROM AFRICA

Middle East Newsline ^ | July 14, 2003

[Roscoe Karns]

WASHINGTON [MENL] -- The CIA employed information from British intelligence that Baghdad had sought to purchase up to 500 tons of pure uranium from Africa.

The CIA disclosed the extent of its intelligence on Iraq's nuclear procurement efforts in Africa in a statement on Friday that quoted from a classified report drafted in 2002. The agency acknowledged that it had failed to warn President George Bush against referring to the British report that Iraq was negotiating with Niger for uranium.

Bush raised the allegation of Iraqi-Niger uranium talks in his State of the Union address in January. In his address, Bush said, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

But the CIA said that less than a year ago it had reported an Iraqi effort to procure a large amount of uranium from Niger. In October 2002, the U.S. intelligence community produced a classified National Intelligence Estimate that determined that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. The NIE referred to Iraqi-Niger negotiations to sell up to 500 tons of uranium to Baghdad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NOTE: The above is not the full item.

This service contains only a small portion of the information produced daily by Middle East Newsline. For a subscription to the full service, please contact Middle East Newsline at: editor@menewsline.com for further details.

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you on Coulter's book -- I had the same thoughts. Not anymore -- she is right!

Amazing isn't it?

[PhiKapMom]

Someone posted on here about the Labour Party official that was supposedly on Saddam's payroll. The documents ended up being suspected of forgery. That is too much of a coincidence to suit me with now saying these documents were forged as well.

Now you all will think I have gone over the edge. What if the original documents which were legit were replaced by documents that had a few mistakes placed in them to point to forgery? That would mean that it originally happened, however, now the suspects can say the documents were forged!

[johnb838]

It IS freaking incredible, V. You know what I see happening now? I see Wa-ay too many people some of them conservative, whining about our losing guys in Iraq. And the liberals are starting the refrain of "how long are we going to beeeee there??? What they're doing is proving the conception that the evil ones already have that as soon as Americans start coming home in body bags, America will lose heart and pull out. It is doing nothing but giving aid, comfort, and encouragement to our enemies and it's really starting to piss me off. SUPPORT the troops. Don't whine about some (a few) of them dying. It doesn't help. Honor them. Support the families, but know that they died in a just cause and stay behind the troops as they complete the mission. WE CAN'T AFFORD TO GO WOBBLY NOW!!!!!!!!!!

[Ditto]

Even if there was a 50% loss in production of the uranium to make it weapons grade, that would still constitute what amounts to three times what the Russians have in 3500 warheads.

It's several orders of magnitude more than a 50% loss in enrichment from 'yellow cake" to anything usuable. Nuclear fuel, for instance is at 3% enrichment. Weapons grade materials are at 97% enrichment. It takes a hell of a lot of input for small amounts of weapons grade material.

[Robert A Cook PE]

We don't know what exactly material was sought (ore, rocks, or processed and refined yellowcake - much different that the "raw" minerals coming from the mine - and Niger DOESN'T have refining techniques - but the French do!), nor do what what the original documents said, or didn't say.

What we do know is that ONLY ONE vicious anti-Bush hater in the State Dept is the source of the ONLY allegation that these original documents are false. And that "information" is based on his "phone calls" to Niger officials - who wuopld, of course,have no reason to lie, would they?

[The Wizard]

I don't think that the NYT should be speaking about credibilty on a day it relases 2100 words about errors

[OldFriend]

Everthing written in the NYT winds up as fact on the alphabet stations and most of the cable stations too.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Do "conservatives" join the RATliars and anti-American jihad to attack the President who has done everything he could to destroy our enemies or do they support the best president possible at this times? My guess is NO conservatives won't, but the circle-jerk of Bush Bashers WILL gladly.

Iraq imported 310+ tons of yellowcake in the earlier 80s who is fool enough to think they wouldn't try again? RATliars, that's who.

[JohnGalt]

I support Bush, and barring some unforeseen reason, will vote for him in 2004.

If he loses, I will blame you.

I think you just prefer taking issue with me rather than hopping on the real Bush-basher threads; the ones that talk about the Road Map leading to the death of Israel. Do a search on 'yonif' and see what vile is spoken about our
President.

They are the ones who will bolt if the D's dangle a bigger carrot-- which Dean, Kerry, and Lieberman have already done.


"President who has done everything he could to destroy our enemies "

Hyperbole. Its pretty clear to most observers that the administration gave Qatar and the Saudis a pass for geopolitical reasons. Secondly, by increasing centralization of government and making only superficial moves to insure a better armed citizenry, he has neglected traditionally conservative means of ensuring national security.


"Iraq imported 310+ tons of yellowcake in the earlier 80s who is fool enough to think they wouldn't try again? RATliars, that's who."

I am not sure on the validity of these claims, but I consistently have pointed out that Rummy and Wolfowitz, the architects of Middle Eastern policy in the 1980s, got us into this mess with Iraq and the Middle East by getting Reagan to sign off on the Iraq regime in 1984.

[cinFLA]

I am not sure on the validity of these claims, but I consistently have pointed out that Rummy and Wolfowitz, the architects of Middle Eastern policy in the 1980s, got us into this mess with Iraq and the Middle East by getting Reagan to sign off on the Iraq regime in 1984.

More accurately it was Carter and Iran.

[JohnGalt]

No, it was Rummy who signed off on the regime, unless you are trying to make a seperate point that at the time, it was fairly logical move as a result of Carter losing Iran.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am glad to hear you will vote for Bush.

I have no interest in the Roadmap threads but am not targeting you in any way.

There is little role for the Second amendment in this struggle. We are not facing an enemy which would be deterred or affected by having an armed citizenry (which I do support however.) What does having an armed citizenry have to do with tracking down terrorists in Yemen or Pakistan? How does having a firearm uncover infiltrators from Saddam burrowing into the fabric of our nation?

Centralization is an inevitable consequence of National defense and security concerns. One of the problems is there was actually too little centralization which allowed enemies to enter through the chinks. INS was not talking to NSA or FBI or CIA. That had to be changed.

Qatar and Saudi Arabia were necessary for our purposes but enemies within them will be dealt with in time. Impatient men are poor leaders.

[Dolphy]

Now you all will think I have gone over the edge

I don't think you are over the edge, I have many suspicions. I don't think we have the complete story and it has Iraq's and its former enablers fingerprints all over it. The game for the Dems right now is the same one Saddam used to play on the world stage...attack Bush's and US credibility. Throwing curves and setting traps seems to be all part of the game.

Now Tenet is saying that he didn't think the uranium story was credible and should have had it removed from the State of the Union. If he knew it then why wouldn't he have advised Powell/UN rather than having El Baradei publicly embarrass us in March. I just don't think this story is yet complete. It may never be since it only became interesting to the media when they found a way to use it against Bush.

[VOA]

I am with you on Coulter's book -- I had the same thoughts. Not anymore -- she is right!

I got to hear Coulter responding to criticism of the book from "the right"/conservatives
yesterday on The Larry Elder Show on KABC 790AM (www.kabc.com).
A pretty conservative (and thus lonely!) producer named Lionel Chetwith (sp?) did a good
show with her, saying she had gone too far in trying to rescue McCarthy's reputiation...and thus
was giving ammo to leftists/liberals.
(Chetwith did a show that was on PBS out here about some writer/producer/director named
Foreman who suppossedly got mired in the controversy of the McCarthy era.)

Chetwith may have had some points...but Coulter held her ground and (as objectively as I can)
I'd say she won on about 80-90% of the discussion.
(In some moments, I found myself saying "Here is the American Margaret Thatcher!".)

All I can say is that I'm mostly holding with Coulter's thesis because I've not yet
heard/read one leftist/liberal respond to what (in my words) is her real challenge:
Name ONE person who was
1. FALSELY accussed of Communist sympathy or collaboration
AND
2. Suffered in a material fashion due to such a false accussation.

I've heard probably four or five liberal/leftist callers to talk radio on Coulter's book --
lots of b-tching and whining about Coulter and her book...BUT NOT ONE
such victim of McCarthy has been trotted out yet.

I'm sure you've hear me report this before, but I'll throw it out again for lurkers:
The PBS NOVA episode of "Secrets, Lies and Atomic Spies" simply blows away any naive disbelief
that there wasn't a large number of Soviet agents/sympathizers in the US government.
And to hear a PBS special say that McCarthy was correct in generalities (but off the mark
in specifics, because the FBI and other agencies kept him in the dark)...that is pretty strong stuff
in favor of McCarthy.

[VOA]

What they're doing is proving the conception that the evil ones already have that
as soon as Americans start coming home in body bags, America will lose heart and pull out.

I can't begin to understand the thoughts and emotions of parents/family/friends who are
now attending funerals of a loved one killed following the cessation of "major" hostilities.

All I know is that one of the few times I've cried over something I've heard on radio/TV
(aside from 9-11) was a Paul Harvey vignette about a teacher who had
"rescued" a failing student, only to learn the student was killed in the border line area
between North and South Korea AFTER "peace" had been declared.

These surely ARE the times that try the souls of good people. Good people
from the USA, UK, Australia, Poland, All The Coalition, even the folks in Iraq
who want at least a semblance of a humane society.

With that lenghty prolouge (sp?), I hearby declare I'll be bit scarce at freerepublic
for a week or so.
Today I found my old hometown newpaper has a listing of locals serving overseas...
and I'm going to be getting out some packages to THE REAL Best and Brightest.

Sure, they are volunteers, but they are made of flesh and blood and soul.
And they need to know that WE haven't and WON'T go wobbly.

And now that the deployments have been extended...now is the time to give
tangible support...both in material and moral form.


{OK, y'all can breath a sigh of relief. That's about as pretentious as I'll get
for a good, long time. But I did mean every word of it.)

[cinFLA]

No, it was Rummy who signed off on the regime, unless you are trying to make a seperate point that at the time, it was fairly logical move as a result of Carter losing Iran.

Right. For the loss of a nail, a shoe .....

[VOA]

thread discussing yesterday's appearance of Coulter on KABC radio at this URL:

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/post?id=946138%2C1

[JohnGalt]

"There is little role for the Second amendment in this struggle."

That is an assumption your are bringing to the table not me; I look at airplanes the way conservatives looked at public schools after the shooting outbreak of the 90s. What was it the gun people told us? Gun control leads to genocide?

I object to the term 'struggle'-- its fascist connotation does not sit well with me. The 'war' of East vs West is fought at the borders, however, it is the neoconservatives of the Manhattan kind who support current liberal immigration policies that ensure plenty of disgruntled A-rab barbarians coming through the front door.

The rest of your post raise separate issues:

Letters of marque and reprisal and out right bribes to Arab states who turn over terrorists would be just fine with me.

I believe the Iraq War diverted attention and resources from hunting down the 9/11 criminals. I believe the reason the 9/11 criminals have and will continue to escape justice is that many likely cashed a CIA check in the 1980s, or more recently, in the Kosovo campaign. The CIA found a willing group working close to the White House who were content to blame the whole thing on Saddam. It was a win win situation for the ruling parties.

(Just a general outline of my thoughts on the matter no need to spend too much time on my theories, they are not important enough.)


"Centralization is an inevitable consequence of National defense and security concerns."

And its proven to be a colossal failure so those who made decision to do such should be publicly disgraced and their pensions stripped.

"Qatar and Saudi Arabia were necessary for our purposes but enemies within them will be dealt with in time. Impatient men are poor leaders. "

Rhetorical devices; the guilty have already escaped. The War on Some Terror was a disaster, leaving us with debt, dead bodies, higher taxes, fewer personal freedoms, and is now bringing us into Liberia diverting ever more resources.

[PhiKapMom]

I am with you and don't think we have heard the whole story. I think the Administration should have laid low and let this play out because it seems that Tenet and some others spoke too soon. Their intentions were honorable and I am sure they had no idea that Mrs. Wilson, a CIA operative on WMD's, had offered her husband to go to Niger. Would be willing to bet she is the CIA anonymous source.

Looks to me like Tenet did some investigating on his own and next thing we know Novak has the story of the Wilsons!

[PhiKapMom]

That is really interesting about Coulter's book.

Last night on Joe Scarborough's show, he had mhking (smart, well mannered, knew what he saying), against a loudmouth NAACP mouthpiece (arrogant, rude, touted RAT talking point papers). Toward the end, Joe asked the NAACP mouthpiece to name ONE Republican that the NAACP had ever supported. They were discussing that the NAACP should lose their tax exempt status BTW. The loudmouth got flustered and started hemming and hawing and Joe kept pressing and finally said YOU CAN'T!

I had a vision in my mind of mhking sitting there laughing. What a contrast between a gentlemen Freeper and a loudmouth NAACP/DNC spokesman. NAACP is nothing more than an arm of the RATs if you ask me.