Yellowcake? Who Lied?

Recall former Ambassador Joe Wilson’s “proving” that Iraq had not tried to buy the yellowcake uranium. The crack investigator sat around and drank tea with someone, and, after that exhaustive research, surmised that it was all just part of the “mad rush to war”.

Wilson: "I spent the next eight days drinking sweet mint tea and meeting with dozens of people: current government officials, former government officials, people associated with the country’s uranium business. It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place…

…If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses."

Turns out the Financial Times doesn’t quite agree – we’ll see how much play this story gets on this side of the Pond:

Intelligence backs claim Iraq tried to buy uranium
By Mark Huband in Rome
Published: June 27 2004 21:56 | Last Updated: June 27 2004 21:56

Illicit sales of uranium from Niger were being negotiated with five states including Iraq at least three years before the US-led invasion, senior European intelligence officials have told the Financial Times.

Intelligence officers learned between 1999 and 2001 that uranium smugglers planned to sell illicitly mined Nigerien uranium ore, or refined ore called yellow cake, to Iran, Libya, China, North Korea and Iraq.

These claims support the assertion made in the British government dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programme in September 2002 that Iraq had sought to buy uranium from an African country, confirmed later as Niger. George W. Bush, US president, referred to the issue in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

The claim that the illicit export of uranium was under discussion was widely dismissed when letters referring to the sales - apparently sent by a Nigerien official to a senior official in Saddam Hussein’s regime - were proved by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be forgeries. This embarrassed the US and led the administration to reverse its earlier claim.

But European intelligence officials have for the first time confirmed that information provided by human intelligence sources during an operation mounted in Europe and Africa produced sufficient evidence for them to believe that Niger was the centre of a clandestine international trade in uranium.

Officials said the fake documents, which emerged in October 2002 and have been traced to an Italian with a record for extortion and deception, added little to the picture gathered from human intelligence and were only given weight by the Bush administration.

According to a senior counter-proliferation official, meetings between Niger officials and would-be buyers from the five countries were held in several European countries, including Italy. Intelligence officers were convinced that the uranium would be smuggled from abandoned mines in Niger, thereby circumventing official export controls. “The sources were trustworthy. There were several sources, and they were reliable sources,” an official involved in the European intelligence gathering operation said.

The UK government used the details in its Iraq weapons dossier, which it used to justify war with Iraq after concluding that it corresponded with other information it possessed, including evidence gathered by GCHQ, the UK eavesdropping centre, of a visit to Niger by an Iraqi official.

However, the European investigation suggested that it was the smugglers who were actively looking for markets, though it was unclear how far the deals had progressed and whether deliveries of uranium were made.


http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373295039&p=1012571727085

Evidence of Niger uranium trade ‘years before war’
By Mark Huband
Published: June 27 2004 21:56 | Last Updated: June 27 2004 21:56

When thieves stole a steel watch and two bottles of perfume from Niger’s embassy on Via Antonio Baiamonti in Rome at the end of December 2000, they left behind many questions about their intentions.

The identity of the thieves has not been established. But one theory is that they planned to steal headed notepaper and official stamps that would allow the forging of documents for the illicit sale of uranium from Niger’s vast mines.

The break-in is one of the murkier elements surrounding the claim - made by the US and UK governments in the lead-up to the Iraq war - that Iraq sought to buy uranium illicitly from Niger.

The British government has said repeatedly it stands by intelligence it gathered and used in its controversial September 2002 dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction programmes. It still claims that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger.

But the US intelligence community, officials and politicians, are publicly sceptical, and the public differences between the two allies on the issue have obscured the evidence that lies behind the UK claim.

Until now, the only evidence of Iraq’s alleged attempts to buy uranium from Niger had turned out to be a forgery. In October 2002, documents were handed to the US embassy in Rome that appeared to be correspondence between Niger and Iraqi officials.

When the US State Department later passed the documents to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN nuclear watchdog, they were found to be fake. US officials have subsequently distanced themselves from the entire notion that Iraq was seeking buy uranium from Niger.

However, European intelligence officers have now revealed that three years before the fake documents became public, human and electronic intelligence sources from a number of countries picked up repeated discussion of an illicit trade in uranium from Niger. One of the customers discussed by the traders was Iraq.

These intelligence officials now say the forged documents appear to have been part of a “scam”, and the actual intelligence showing discussion of uranium supply has been ignored.

The fake documents were handed to an Italian journalist working for the Italian magazine Panorama by a businessman in October 2002. According to a senior official with detailed knowledge of the case, this businessman had been dismissed from the Italian armed forces for dishonourable conduct 25 years earlier.

The journalist - Elisabetta Burba - reported in a Panorama article that she suspected the documents were forgeries and handed them to officials at the US embassy in Rome.

The businessman, referred to by a pseudonym in the Panorama article, had previously tried to sell the documents to several intelligence services, according to a western intelligence officer.

It was later established that he had a record of extortion and deception and had been convicted by a Rome court in 1985 and later arrested at least twice. The suspected forger’s real name is known to the FT, but cannot be used because of legal constraints. He did not return telephone calls yesterday, and is understood to be planning to reveal selected aspects of his story to a US television channel.

The FT has now learnt that three European intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence gathered in Italy and Africa more than three years before the Iraq war had shown Niger officials referring to possible illicit uranium deals with at least five countries, including Iraq.

This intelligence provided clues about plans by Libya and Iran to develop their undeclared nuclear programmes. Niger officials were also discussing sales to North Korea and China of uranium ore or the “yellow cake” refined from it: the raw materials that can be progressively enriched to make nuclear bombs.

The raw intelligence on the negotiations included indications that Libya was investing in Niger’s uranium industry to prop it up at a time when demand had fallen, and that sales to Iraq were just a part of the clandestine export plan. These secret exports would allow countries with undeclared nuclear programmes to build up uranium stockpiles.

One nuclear counter-proliferation expert told the FT: “If I am going to make a bomb, I am not going to use the uranium that I have declared. I am going to use what I acquire clandestinely, if I am going to keep the programme hidden.”

This may have been the method being used by Libya before it agreed last December to abandon its secret nuclear programme. According to the IAEA, there are 2,600 tonnes of refined uranium ore - “yellow cake” - in Libya. However, less than 1,500 tonnes of it is accounted for in Niger records, even though Niger was Libya’s main supplier.

Information gathered in 1999-2001 suggested that the uranium sold illicitly would be extracted from mines in Niger that had been abandoned as uneconomic by the two French-owned mining companies - Cominak and Somair, both of which are owned by the mining giant Cogema - operating in Niger.

“Mines can be abandoned by Cogema when they become unproductive. This doesn’t mean that people near the mines can’t keep on extracting,” a senior European counter-proliferation official said.

He added that there was no evidence the companies were aware of the plans for illicit mining.

When the intelligence gathered in 1999-2001 was thrown into the diplomatic maelstrom that preceded the US-led invasion of Iraq, it took on new significance. Several services contributed to the picture.

The Italians, looking for corroboration but lacking the global reach of the CIA or the UK intelligence service MI6, passed information to the US in 2001 and to the UK in 2002.

The UK eavesdropping centre GCHQ had intercepted communications suggesting Iraq was seeking clandestine uranium supplies, as had the French intelligence service.

The Italian intelligence was not incorporated in detail into the assessments of the CIA, which seeks to use such information only when it is gathered from its own sources rather than as a result of liaison with foreign intelligence services. But five months after receiving it, the US sent former ambassador Joseph Wilson to Niger to assess the credibility of separate US intelligence information that suggested Iraq had approached Niger.

Mr Wilson was critical of the Bush administration’s use of secret intelligence, and has since charged that the White House sought to intimidate him by leaking the identity of his wife, Valerie Plame, as a CIA agent.

But Mr Wilson also stated in his account of the visit that Mohamed Sayeed al-Sahaf, Iraq’s former information minister, was identified to him by a Niger official as having sought to discuss trade with Niger.

As Niger’s other main export is goats, some intelligence officials have surmised uranium was what Mr Sahaf was referring to.

BB,

‘Bush Lied, Thousands Died’…

…hadn’t you heard?

Good post.

Quite simply:

Where the hell is it all?

How long ago did we invade Iraq?

Where was the threat?

How many US soldiers have died?

How many Iraqi citizens have died?

How much money have we spent?

How have we made Iraq a better place?

How have we made the US a safer place?

You guys are going to run out of breath trying to defend this guy.

RSU,

Quite simply:

Where the hell is it all?

-Fair question: could be buried, could be in Syria, could be destroyed. The point is, there are no WMDs in the able hands of Saddam Hussein. And that is in America’s national interest.

How long ago did we invade Iraq?

-You really don’t know?

Where was the threat?

-Saddam was a threat to international peace and security, follow the paper trail from Resolution 687 to Resolution 1441.

How many US soldiers have died?

-Last I read around 800? I think?

How many Iraqi citizens have died?

-Don’t know; there isn’t an honest accounting. Most of the statistics are laden with political agendas and include plainclothes insurgents brandishing weapons as ‘citizens’. But, if it helps, shrill antiwar critics had projections in the hundreds of thousands and a refugee crisis. Clearly not true.

How much money have we spent?

-Billions. How much is a liberation of the oppressed along with added international security worth?

How have we made Iraq a better place?

-This is foolish. An ousted Saddam automatically improves Iraq. Democratic institutions have a shot at being planted there and Iraqis of all types are getting better opportunities at education and employment than they have seen in generations. Oh, and not being put into paper shredders.

How have we made the US a safer place?

-Saddam cannot offer clearinghouse of weapons for terrorist elements; Islamofascist movements/regimes have witnessed the West’s willingness to strike back at its advancement; the war in iraq is drawing terrorist elements into the fray outside the US…

You guys are going to run out of breath trying to defend this guy.

-Just getting warmed up. And, as I always suggest, I’m open to credible alternatives. It’s just a shame the Left doesn’t offer any.

I have to laugh that BB is so fixated on the “drinking tea” aspect of the story… he always mentions it, as if it is really important.

I guess Wilson would have been more credible if he said “we ate nothing and drank nothing but bourbon”.

“we chewed tobacco and swatted flies”

“we huddled over a card table, with a bottle of Gatorade”

Wilson discredited the Niger document as a forgery, as he was asked to do by the White House. If there is new evidence, it will stand the test of time, and not dissappear like a lot of the other borderline disinformation we’ve seen come out about the war.

Interestingly nobody here knows that at least 10 rounds of sarin and mustard gas were found.

“Duelfer also said his team has now found 10 or 12 chemical-weapon rounds armed with sarin and mustard gas. Until now, only a few chemical rounds had been reported.”

www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/23807.htm

I would try to explain how drinking tea is important to Lumpy, but he is too busy drinking the kool-aid.

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Interestingly nobody here knows that at least 10 rounds of sarin and mustard gas were found.[/quote]

Then why is some of the Admin. still saying they’ll find it eventually, while others are saying they received very poor intelligence?

[quote]www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/23807.htm
[/quote]

Don’t read the Post unless it’s from Washington.

“I would try to explain how drinking tea is important to Lumpy, but he is too busy drinking the kool-aid.”

Lets hear it !! Come on, The Mage,

Dazzle me.

Patton didn’t want to stop at Berlin. He wanted to march on Moscow. We could have. We would have lost more than 800 but we could have save 60 million plus lives. Freedom ALWAYS comes at a cost! How many police died in our country in the time period since we freed Kuwait? 800? I know way more than 800 American innocents have died because of drunk driving!!!If Bush Sr. had rolled into Bagdad then how many lives of innocents would be saved? How many Iraqi people would not be so emotionally scarred from Saddam’s brutallity? Stop pissing about our lives lost! It hurts us that they are gone, but how many others would pay the price if we don’t go? Stop being so self-centered! It is not about a number of lives lost it is about freedom for the people of the world. Freedom is a concept that this world has never had much of UNTIL the US came into existance. We set the example and control 80+% of the world’s wealth, we CAN NOT be selfish. If you ever travel extensively (as I have) in 3rd world countries and actually care about the people you meet you would realize the value of other less fortunate people. WMD or not we went in on faulty info. Bush didnt lie. I have friends who are friends of the Bush family. He DID get SOME bad info. SOME info has not been released because of it’s sensativity. The point is we are in and they have a new chance at life. Now lets just bring them home!

Perhaps the lefties have got their panties bundled so tight and their beds so wet over the removal of Saddam because he was a Baathist- supposedly secular and vaguely socialist. By their reckoning the killling of tens of millions by the demi-gods of Communisim are ‘excesses’ deserving of a very gentle slap on the wrist and a vague promise not to exceed the killing quotas in a manner attracting undue attention (looks bad for the cause, you see). But when a big-spending Texan removes a regional thug harboring terrorists (the A-team)and paying the families of suicide bombers, well, hell no, can’t have any of that.

Why are most on the left so demanding of an absolute level of proof on one side while excusing the most obvious on the other?

The basis of the arguments against the case for war rest almost entirely on no Al Qaeda-Iraq connection and no WMD, or banned means of delivering them. Evidence of both is starting to emerge. It dates back to things dug up in the Clinton years on the AQ-I link. As for WMD see above, and reports of junked missle parts with UN inspection tags surfacing in places outside Iraq. One can rest assured though, that it most likely won’t meet Lumpy’s standard. Wouldn’t be too terribly surprised if the NYT, WP, CBS, NBC, ABC, etc don’t see it as news fit to print or whatever too. Hell, if Saddam confessed to him personally, Lumpy probably still wouldn’t believe it.

By the way, Lumpy, I don’t know who might want to take the time to ‘dazzle’ you, but mocking and ridiculing you are kinda fun.

BB and all… All very interesting articles (especially the really objective and completely unbiased ones from “we-have-our-noses-so-far-up-Bush’s-ass-they-stink” NY Post). To use your very own logic, if this is now public knowledge and mainstream information why aren’t all the hawks parading this out in front of us all to prove their point? If this was more than speculation, I guarantee you that the desperate Bush administration would have this on every big news station there is. Also not surprisingly was the fact that some of the “evidence” was presented by British Intel, who has as much crow to eat as American Intel. Nothing more reliable that intel from American puppet presidential ass-kissers from Britain.

Roy, the paper does not matter. It is a quote from the current WMD inspector. An actually Quote. It is not the only source of the information. I knew the information already, searched for it, and posted the first source form a real paper. I do realize you get all your facts from Michael Moore movies, but you should read a paper every once in a while.

:^)

(That is an emoticon. Ha Ha.)

Lumpy. It means that if his inspections were noting but minor chat sessions, then his information is lacking. This is not investigating.

The British intelligence having intercepted conversations about yellow cake uranium, (and the special devils food uranium), and the potential sale to Iraq is very substantial, and real investigating. (And spying.)

Now did you understand the kool-aid joke?

[quote]The Mage wrote:
Roy, the paper does not matter. It is a quote from the current WMD inspector. An actually Quote. It is not the only source of the information. I knew the information already, searched for it, and posted the first source form a real paper. I do realize you get all your facts from Michael Moore movies, but you should read a paper every once in a while.

:^)

(That is an emoticon. Ha Ha.)
[/quote]

LOL!

If Bush really had something conclusive don’t doubt for a second that he wouldn’t have that head on a spear for all to see.

I think that I’m going to have to disagree with Roy Batty just a wee bit. It would appear that there is at least one thing “…more reliable than intel from American puppet presidential ass-kissers from Britain.” That would be the stream of information and opinion he graces us with- we lesser beings can take it as the Alpha and Omega, the last word, God’s (oops, sorry RB) honest truth, the gold standard, so on, etc.

So, RB, just how long did it take you to go to Iraq and turn over every stone, interview Saddam and Bin Laden and verify all they said? Did American and British intel check in with you? How did you get so gosh darn tootin’ omniscient anyway? Can you show the rest of us, or are we too far gone? Being so all-knowing, couldn’t you have taught the Demos how to take back the House and Senate, as usually happens in an off-year election, especially against a President as dumb as you know him to be? Oh, and how does the CIC force the major news outlets to headline his agenda? One, albeit someone not in possession of your mental greatness of course, may speculate that the major media, maybe, perhaps, might make a bigger story of a President in trouble grasping at straws trying to manipulate the news. Do tell.

I hate to quote an anti-T band from the late seventies (Styx), but"…why must you be such an angry young man…?

Lets see what kind of legs this story has. For all we know, this story will be discredited like other stories such as weather balloons, mobile labs, and aluminum tubes being proof of WMD (all false alarms).

The Financial Times is the only paper to run this story so far, to my knowledge.

Re: the Wilson meetings. All he had to do is figure out that the alleged signature on the contract was from somnebody who had been out of office for over 10 years. How much investigating does that take?

Wilson was Bush Senior’s man in Iraq prior to and during the first Gulf War. Bush Senior commended Wilson’s service. That’s probably why the CIA asked him to investigate the yellow cake allegations in the first place.

I love the way that Team Bush slanders peoples’ integrity when they don’t toe the party line. Typical “kill the messenger” crap.

I have no idea what I meant by the weather balloon reference LOL.

However a lot of stuff has been flung against the wall, and hasn’t stuck. For example how Jessica Lynch ‘kept firing until her gun jammed’ and so on.

I don’t know who said it, but there is a saying that “The first casualty of war is the truth”.

9/11 Commission: No Connection

Paraphrased:
“This administration never said that the 9/11 attacks were orchestrated between al Qaeda and Saddam. We said there was communication between al Qaeda and Saddam.”

-GW Bush

Also Paraphrased:
“I keep insisting there was a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda…because there WAS a connection between al Qaeda and Iraq.”

Thanks for clearing that up, Gee Dub.

I ask you - no connection and no better explanation, can you still defend the war? Does the entire reason for going to war hang on a barrel of sarin found somewhere around somewhere? Does it hang on these vague reports hidden here and there? War is war fellas - the reason for going should be painstakingly obvious.

RSU,

How did you become so insightfull that you know that it should be “painstaikingly obvious” before going to war? You state it as if everyone learned this in elementary school. Take a little of what you were stating in another post about taxes, this is much more complicated than any of us here are capable of dealing with. And after 911, i’m not so sure it needs to be so obvious for us to go in and take out a very bad person.

By trying to oversimplify the choice to to be made you try to make the administration sound "really stupid’ when in all honesty i’m sure that this was gone over a thousand times by a thousand more informed people than us. It’s not like bush just woke up one morning and said, well I think Saddams up to no good so i’m going in to take him down. This war developed for over a year. And our congress gave the ok to go in. Including many of the democrats, and Kerry himself.

Vegita ~ Prince of all Sayajins

[quote]Vegita wrote:
RSU,

How did you become so insightfull that you know that it should be “painstaikingly obvious” before going to war? You state it as if everyone learned this in elementary school. [/quote]

I say this because it seems intuitive to me that peace is better than war, and if we are going to put our troops in harms way and spend the money on a large-scale war, then the war’s justification should be pretty fucking clear.

You’re absolutely right – I don’t think Bush can initiate a sentence as coherent or a thought as intricate as that.

Believe me, I know – and it pains me! Get a spine Dems! Grow a backbone! Grow back your balls is what I was thinking at that time.