Key Iraqi said to counter U.S. claims on tubes, bomb project

Associated Press ^ | 07-17-03

[Brian S]

A key Iraqi scientist recently told the CIA that high-strength aluminum tubes bought by Baghdad weren't meant for nuclear bomb production, as President Bush suggested in his State of the Union address, two experts on Iraq's nuclear program say.

Mahdi Shukur Obeidi, who headed a uranium-enrichment unit vital to Iraq's pre-1991 bomb plans, "also said that since '91 they hadn't resurrected a nuclear weapon program," according to ex-Iraq inspector David Albright, an American physicist who acted as go-between for Obeidi to talk to U.S. authorities a few weeks ago.

[Dog]

Alan Foley is the boss of Valerie Plame Wilson wife of Joseph C. Wilson IV...

[DannyTN]

"The Iraqi was in a position to know, Baute said. "He should have been aware if something had happened," the inspector said of claims Baghdad had revived its bomb-building. "

Yes, let's trust the Iraqi, who was in a trusted position, meaning he was a Saddam loyalist.

Because everyone (in the media) knows you can trust Saddam loyalists. While nobody in any of the West's intelligence are trustworthy. /Sarcasm off

[Dog]

See 21.

[swarthyguy]

Where is Karen Hughes, btw?

See, DG, it's not only me. GET HER BACK! NOW!

[Dog]

I came across him the other day when I was researching Valerie Plame Wilson..

[William McKinley]

And as with most things the Democrats focus on, completely irrelevant. The supposed refutation to Bush's assertion here is that the Iraqis were using something even more advanced. Er, that means they were in fact doing what Bush said.

Which we already knew, due to that scientist pointing us to a gas centrifuge component he had hidden in his backyard.

[William McKinley]

LOL This reporter seems to think if he clicks his ruby slippers repeatedly, he can make the past be whatever he wants it to be.

[Brian S]

I agree with the "where is Karen Hughes" cry!

Hasn't been right around the WH since she left.

But NO! Here comes Mary Matalin to the rescue...

[mtxes]

I think the Bush administration is playing this whole 'scandal' pretty smart. Critics on the left accused the President of invading Iraq as a distraction from the economy, but now the media is doing the exact same thing by creating a distraction for him with these reports. Meanwhile the issue that could have really hurt him, tax cuts in the middle of an expensive 'war' goes completely unnoticed.

And though many would dismiss it as irrelevant, the legitimacy of the intelligence is still important, as it was the threat of nuclear weapons that galvanized support for the war. What concerned you more, the gassing of Iraqis in 1988 (which could have been done by Iran) or the thought of nukes on U.S. shores?

[Dog]

Check out this week old artcile from the Statesman.....dated July 12,2003.

Now note the Joseph -Foley exchange was reported in the NYTIMES before Tenet went to the Hill yesterday.

Click.

Before Bush's speech, conversations between the CIA and White House over whether to include the African reference were held between Bob Joseph, a National Security Council nuclear proliferation expert, and Alan Foley, a CIA proliferation expert, government officials told The New York Times.

There is still a dispute over what exactly was said in their conversations. Foley was said to recall that before the speech, Joseph asked him about putting into the speech a reference to reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from Niger. Foley replied that the CIA wasn't sure that information was right.

Joseph then came back to Foley and pointed out that the British had already included the information in a report. Foley said yes, but noted that the CIA had told the British that it wasn't sure that information was correct. Joseph then asked whether it was accurate that the British reported the information? Foley said yes.

This article contains material from wire services.

[Dog]

Someone is leaking to the Times info about the Foley- Joseph exchange and it seems we are only getting Foley's side so far.

Now why would the media ...(NBC) treat this meeting of Foley-Joseph as a breaking news story unless they have nothing else and want to keep this story alive.

[mewzilla]

I'd like to hear this guy's explanation for what was buried under that rose bush....

[Dog]

This crap is getting dangerous now........our enemies see this whining and second guessing and take it for weakness.

[William McKinley]

Ding ding ding ding ding!

I am comfortable with them keeping it alive. The Democrats are far out on a limb, right where I like them being.

[Howlin]

And I should believe this guy why?

[mewzilla]

They'll do that at their peril. But I agree, this is putting our service people at an increased risk by emboldening these expletives-deleted. It's giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

[Howlin]

[Right_in_Virginia]

"This crap is getting dangerous now........our enemies see this whining and second guessing and take it for weakness."

I agree. Are others in America noting Saddam's latest audio tape basically quotes dimm US Senators?

When will the DemocRATS be called on this??

[Dog]

Seems TIME reported on this Foley-Joseph exchange back in January of this year.

Here.

Time magazine reported a conversation in January, a few days before the presidential speech, between a top CIA analyst, Alan Foley, and a "a key national security council official", in which Mr Foley objected to including the allegation in the speech.

Robert Joseph, the president's adviser on weapons of mass destruction, denied he was the official who approved the line about British intelligence.

But Time quoted another official as saying: "There was a debate about whether to cite it on our own intelligence. But once the UK made it public, we felt comfortable citing what they had learned."