Bush takes responsibility for Niger claim; UK foreign office defends uranium claims.

GUARDIAN ^ | 07/30/03 | Agencies

[Pikamax]

Bush takes responsibility for Niger claim

Agencies Wednesday July 30, 2003

The US president, George Bush, today accepted personal responsibility for citing a controversial claim that the former Iraqi regime tried to obtain nuclear material in Africa. "I take personal responsibility for everything I say, absolutely," the president said at a White House news conference when asked about the now discredited accusation.

Mr Bush's administration has faced increasing scrutiny over the claim - which was based on British intelligence - ever since the CIA publicly cast doubt over its validity, saying it should not have been included in his State of the Union address last year.

Mr Bush has been asked before about the 16 words on Niger he uttered in his keynote speech, but declined to take personal responsibility. Instead, CIA director George Tenet and a senior White House aide, deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, accepted blame for the oversight.

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa," the president said in last winter's nationally televised address. But many CIA officials doubted the accuracy of the British intelligence - concerns that were not reflected in the decision to include the statement in the speech.

Mr Bush's appearance before reporters marked the eighth time since taking office that he has fielded questions at a formal news conference, and the first time since American and British forces invaded Iraq last March.

By comparison, former President Bill Clinton had held 33 formal news conferences at a comparable point in his administration, while Mr Bush's father, former President George Bush, had held 61.

Today's development came as the Foreign Office was forced to defend the British government's evidence for the Niger claims.

In a letter to the Commons foreign affairs committee (FAC), it insisted there had been no need to include a "health warning" on the claim in the government's dossier on Iraqi weapons as it was confident in the underlying intelligence.

Before the war, the International Atomic Energy Authority said that documents it had received relating to the allegation had been crude forgeries.

Britain, however, has insisted that it received separate intelligence from a third country - widely assumed to be France - which it could not share with the Americans.

In its letter, responding to a series of detailed questions from the FAC, the Foreign Office confirmed that the CIA had warned just before the dossier was published last September that it did not believe the claim was credible.

However, it said that the CIA had provided no explanation for its concerns. "UK officials were confident that the dossier's statement was based on reliable intelligence. A judgment was therefore made by the JIC (joint intelligence committee) chairman to retain the reference," it said.

"British officials saw no need to put a health warning on the claim, because they were confident in the intelligence underlying it. The reference in the dossier was based on intelligence from more than one source."

The Foreign Office again insisted that it had only learned of a visit to Niger early last year by former US ambassador Joseph Wilson - who also cast doubt on the uranium claim - when details appeared in the media.

The letter acknowledged that documents and centrifuge parts needed to enrich uranium discovered at the home of an Iraqi nuclear scientist - which were referred to by the foreign secretary, Jack Straw - had been hidden for 12 years.

However, it added that the finds were still significant as the scientist had said that he had been ordered to conceal them "so as to be able to rebuild the bomb programme at some time in the future".

It said: "The discovery was significant both in terms of Iraq retaining components for a nuclear programme, and as an example of successful concealment from UN inspectors".

[goldstategop]

Its a 100% true statement. The Administration got itself bollixed over 16 words by admitting it was false when the British have stood by their intelligence. It would have been a non-event if the Administration had stood firm and said yes, we have reason to believe there's merit to the data and nothing since January has happened to change our minds.

[My2Cents]

Perhaps the trap is about to be sprung. Bush takes responsibility for the statement in his speech; the British maintain it was accurate; and now all we need is the proof, and this would be the perfect time to have it bubble to the surface.

[My2Cents]

when asked about the now discredited accusation.

Excuse me!? It is only "discredited" in the minds of the mediods who never wanted us to go to war in Iraq in the first place, and have been furious since our overwhelming victory.

[rrrod]

good point..i trust the brits more than ill ever trust the RATS

[My2Cents]

I'm not sure the Administration admitted the sentence was "false," only that it didn't rise to the level of verification that the White House usually reserves for Presidential statements. What the White House should have done, and still should do, is to say that there is intelligence that the statement is correct, but the evidence isn't conclusive.

[smith288]

By comparison, former President Bill Clinton had held 33 formal news conferences at a comparable point in his administration, while Mr Bush's father, former President George Bush, had held 61.

Lord who gives a rats butt... W has a little more on his mind right now than answering a bunch of socialists questions right now. Talk to his press sec. if you have any questions. Thats what he is for.

[Burkeman1]

I am confused? If Tenent said it was his fault, then Hadley sad it was his fault, and know Bush is saying it is his fault- but the intel is "100%" true then why all the falling on swords and responsibility taking?

[Burkeman1]

That was "now"- not "know".

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I am confused? If Tenent said it was his fault, then Hadley sad it was his fault, and know Bush is saying it is his fault- but the intel is "100%" true then why all the falling on swords and responsibility taking?

Because it was a moot point.

Given the fact that the administration already knew Iraq was in possesion of 750 tons of uranium yellowcake, it appears that this was included to "sex up" the SOTU address.

Attempting to buy uranium ore when you have none is a big deal. Attempting to add to an already existing stockpile is not.

[Cobra64]

Its a 100% true statement. The Administration got itself bollixed over 16 words by admitting it was false when the British have stood by their intelligence. It would have been a non-event if the Administration had stood firm and said yes, we have reason to believe there's merit to the data and nothing since January has happened to change our minds.

Yup. W never used the word "Niger." Yet the press keep distorting the truth. W should have shrugged this off since he was going on British intelligence.

[Burkeman1]

I wasn't aware that 750 tons of Yellowcake uranium has been found in Iraq?

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

I wasn't aware that 750 tons of Yellowcake uranium has been found in Iraq?

Actually, Tony Blair, Bill Clinton's and George Bush's British buddy, just placed the number at 750 tons in a recent press conference. In reality, it was a little less. Probably more like, 400-500 tons. (1,100,000 Lbs.)

What was being stored at Al Tuwaitha was no big secret. Everyone (who was anyone in government and had anything to do with Iraq) knew that the IAEA had inspected, found and kept under seal hundreds of tons of yellowcake at that facility.

This is why the including in the SOTU the claims that Iraq attempted to purchase more yellowcake was so ludicrous. Hussein already had tons of the stuff. Literally.

So, why would Bush include this silly claim in a speech unless he was trying to "sex up" the case for war?

And, if he was trying to "sex up" the case for war by including this silly claim, then this would be a good reason for everyone to fall on their swords in hopes that the issue would die.

---

Nuclear capabilities of Iraq
"...A total of some 6 grams of clandestinely produced plutonium was eventually declared by Iraq and was removed during the fifth IAEA inspection. Iraq declared some 400 tons of additional material including natural uranium in many forms ranging from yellowcake to processed chemicals. Much of the material was hidden; it had been moved to secret locations or buried in desert areas. Therefore, it took time to collect the material at a site where it could be identified and verified. This material is now under Agency seals..."

Background Briefing on IAEA Nuclear Safeguards and the Tuwaitha Facility "...The purpose of the inspection is to inventory and assess the condition of the material that is under IAEA safeguards at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility. The material at this facility includes approximately 500 metric tons of safeguarded uranium and several non-fissile radioisotope sources that are not under IAEA safeguards. The uranium is mostly in the form of yellow cake, an isotopically natural form that is an impure oxide. There is a small quantity of low-enriched and depleted uranium."

[Brimack34]

He just said I stand behind everything I say he did not single that one out like this is reported.

[Burkeman1]

Was this stuff found after the war? Or was this stuff found before and given up by Iraq? I am not an expert on the whole pre war inspection stuff.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Was this stuff found after the war? Or was this stuff found before and given up by Iraq? I am not an expert on the whole pre war inspection stuff.

Neither am I.

Before. The last inspection was December, 2002. I left off the last crucial sentance in the last quotation which I re-post below.

Background Briefing on IAEA Nuclear Safeguards and the Tuwaitha Facility
The purpose of the inspection is to inventory and assess the condition of the material that is under IAEA safeguards at the Baghdad yellow-cake storage facility. The material at this facility includes approximately 500 metric tons of safeguarded uranium and several non-fissile radioisotope sources that are not under IAEA safeguards. The uranium is mostly in the form of yellow cake, an isotopically natural form that is an impure oxide. There is a small quantity of low-enriched and depleted uranium. Typically, the IAEA would conduct an NPT safeguards inspection at this location annually. The last inspection was conducted in December of 2002..."

[Burkeman1]

So- has this stuff been found yet? And could it have been used to do anything in the way of making nukes? Since the Iraqi's admitted to having this stuff I assume it wasn't a big deal.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

So- has this stuff been found yet? And could it have been used to do anything in the way of making nukes? Since the Iraqi's admitted to having this stuff I assume it wasn't a big deal.

As far as I know, yes. At Al Tuwaitha. And some was looted and found it's way into the local community when the Iraqis abandoned their post. Seems the locals dumped the yellow and brown mud out on the ground and were using the barrels (about 100 so far) to store drinking water, were bathing in them and washing their clothes in the now-empty barrels.

The military forces rounded up what barrels they could by buying them off the civilians for about $3 each and returned them to Al Tuwaitha.

I'm not a nuclear scientist, nor do I play one on the internet, so I don't know whether this was weapons-grade stuff or if it could be used to create weapons-grade stuff.

[Burkeman1]

Yeah- I remember that story about the locals using the drums the stuff was stored in. Sad- a lot of Iraqis are going to die slow deaths in the months to come.