This Seems To Have Been Ignored Nicely

[Guest MikeSC]

Intelligence backs claim Iraq tried to buy uranium

By Mark Huband in Rome

 

Published: June 27, 2004

 

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://www.nytimes.com/financialtimes/busi...7373295002.html

So, there WAS intel, legitimate intel, about "yellowcake" being smuggled to Iraq from Africa.

 

And, this story is a few days old and hasn't really made a ripple --- not like, say, the ripple the forged documents made a few weeks back.

 

Sounds about par for the course.

-=Mike

[Guest Wildbomb 4:20]

It's interesting to find that there is SOME intelligence supporting Iraq attempting to buy uranium.

 

However, it is not as damning as forgery, false intel, etc. Remember folks, it needs to be sensational in order to be something that the media will pick up on. The press not only has a responsibility to report on stories, but in this time of media consolidation, it also needs to be sure it can sell itself. Which sells better: another story on an American being decapitated, or a report showing that Iraq may have wanted to purchase uranium?

 

Hence, the dropping of some stories that you would have thought would receive more media coverage. Instead of providing intensive coverage on certain stories, instead they'll run something that is guarenteed to sell that day.

 

Remember kids: If it bleeds, it leads...

 

--Ryan

[Art Sandusky 0]

Planned... attempted... tried...

 

When I hear "bought," I'll give a damn.

[Guest MikeSC]

Planned... attempted... tried...

 

When I hear "bought," I'll give a damn.

Of course, all Bush ever said was that Saddam was TRYING to do it.

-=Mike

[Precious Roy 0]

So why aren't we going after Niger?

[Guest MikeSC]

So why aren't we going after Niger?

Well, because we don't know who did it. We don't know enough to do anything yet.

-=Mike

[Vyce 0]

But how can this be true?

 

That great patriot Wilson says otherwise.

[geniusMoment 0]

I do not think there is any question that if he could have Saddam would have made weapons of mass destruction. I have no doubt he attempted to at various times from various countries. The question is, when we went into Iraq did they actually have, or were about to have, weapons of mass destruction? Anyone who claims they know for sure one way or another is either a liar or just insane.

[Guest MikeSC]

I do not think there is any question that if he could have Saddam would have made weapons of mass destruction. I have no doubt he attempted to at various times from various countries. The question is, when we went into Iraq did they actually have, or were about to have, weapons of mass destruction? Anyone who claims they know for sure one way or another is either a liar or just insane.

Thing is, to assume he didn't have them requires one to assume that all of the intel services for every country in the world was wrong for years and years.

-=Mike

[geniusMoment 0]

I have no doubt he has had them before, just ask the Kurds, and would probably have had them again had we not gone in. I guess the question is were the inspections enough to stop him for developing a threat to the United States or other countries.

[Guest MikeSC]

I have no doubt he has had them before, just ask the Kurds, and would probably have had them again had we not gone in. I guess the question is were the inspections enough to stop him for developing a threat to the United States or other countries.

He gave the inspectors the runaround for years.

 

I will use a quote from a member of the administration: It was his job to show that he disarmed --- not our job to prove that he did.

-=Mike

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

"I will say, honestly, Drudge is about as reliable as the NY Times." - MikeSC

 

Intelligence backs claim Iraq tried to buy uranium

(..)

http://www.nytimes.com/financialtimes/busi...7373295002.html

 

I don't know how reliable the NYT is for this. Although, it's interesting that an ignored article is in one of the biggest newspapers in the country, in their overlooked Sunday edition.

 

*shrug*

[Guest INXS]

None was bought, just claims that attempts were made at the moment.

 

There was no WMD in Iraq. Whether he got rid of it, sold it or had simply ran out..there was NO WMD. UN Inspectors said so. The guy in charge of the US inspection team said so. Yet the Bush administration maintained there were WMD...hey..Saddam even had WMD to reach he East Coast!

[Jingus 0]

The what would you call the nerve gas he used on the Kurds? Dry ice?

 

Yeah, that was a while ago, but it's a solid proven fact that Saddam is one of the few people in the world who has used WMDs on humans.

[Precious Roy 0]

it's a solid proven fact that Saddam is one of the few people in the world who has used WMDs on humans.

Have you ever watched Bush's national TV addresses?

[CheesalaIsGood 0]

Yes, but this was all presented to us as "He HAS WMD and we KNOW where they are!" As in at the moment. I would accept that if it was a freudian slip on Bush and Blairs part, but COME ON!

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Planned... attempted... tried...

 

When I hear "bought," I'll give a damn.

So you don't care that a person more than willing to bring destruction to the U.S. was trying to get the material to do so?

 

Okie Dokie...

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

None was bought, just claims that attempts were made at the moment.

 

There was no WMD in Iraq. Whether he got rid of it, sold it or had simply ran out..there was NO WMD. UN Inspectors said so. The guy in charge of the US inspection team said so. Yet the Bush administration maintained there were WMD...hey..Saddam even had WMD to reach he East Coast!

No you totally missed the point. It was sold on the fact that 5 or 6 years down the line Iraq was going to be a serious danger to the U.S. Pre-emptive strike and everything you know.

 

And what good were the UN Inspections when they ANNOUNCED where they were going right before they went there. I don't believe they could've found a WMD if it was sitting right under their nose.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

So does this mean he's gonna stop telling us Iraq had a hand in 9/11? Seems to go with whatever reasoning seems justifiable at the moment.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Bush never said Iraq had a hand in 9/11. Iraq was never even a part of the original Axis of Evil either.

[Guest INXS]

Bush never said Iraq had a hand in 9/11. Iraq was never even a part of the original Axis of Evil either.

Bush and Cheney attempted to tie in Iraq with Al Qaeda. Hence a claimed tie to 9/11.

 

No, it wasn't...no need for Iraq to be a named part of any axis of evil as invasion plans were already drawn up by then with the Bush administration frothing at the mouth to invade Iraq.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

“The reason I keep insisting that there was a relationship between Iraq and Saddam and Al Qaeda: because there was a relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda.”

 

 

Say that, say terrorists, say 9/11 and the people have done the work for you.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Because there have been interactions with Iraq and Al Queda for starters. Saying they had something to do with 9/11 and are involved with Al Queda are completely different things. Bush shouldn't get blamed because people stupidly assume Iraq/Al Queda means Iraq had something to do with 9/11.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

No he should be blamed for not having a solid reason for invading Iraq, attempting to spin truths for support and leading the people to believe things that aren't true.

 

If we must invade Iraq to maintain our security, Iraq and Al Quaida are in 'cahoots', and Al Quaida is responsible for 9/11, just what does he want us to believe? If it's just that, why should we care let alone care enough to invade a country? He wants us to believe Saddam is somehow responsible for 9/11, it's the only all-uniting justification he has.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Someone didn't pay attention at all. Iraq possibly being involved in 9/11 was never part of the reasons to go to Iraq. Iraq's BREAKING OF UN RESOLUTIONS CONSTANTLY WAS THE FUCKING REASON FOR INVADING IRAQ PLEASE GET THAT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. No one is to blame for the invasion other than Saddam. Had he not been giving everyone the run around about if he was disarming or not. He played a dangerous game and lost. That's all their is to it. We wanted him gone for our own secruity which was the fact that he was trying to build WMDs. There at no point was a "IRAQ CAUSED 9/11 SO WE'RE INVADING" justification for the war. 9/11 caused it yes but that's because we want to eliminate terrorists and their enablers.

[Guest Nelly's Bandaid]

So why would Bush even mention a link between them and Al Quaida at all? If the justification is right there, why must he say something that's of no relevance?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Because he assumes people aren't lazy like you and will know the difference between a Iraq/Al Queda and Iraq/Al Queda/911.

[Guest INXS]

We wanted him gone for our own secruity which was the fact that he was trying to build WMDs. There at no point was a "IRAQ CAUSED 9/11 SO WE'RE INVADING" justification for the war. 9/11 caused it yes but that's because we want to eliminate terrorists and their enablers.

He was trying to build WMD's? I must have missed all those WMD finds ....

 

I think that the point here is that yes, there were reasons for going into Iraq (whether or not they were good enough reasons) but the Bush administration tried desperately to make the American public believe that Saddam was tied to Al Qaeda which wasn't the case at all.

[Jingus 0]

Bush never said Iraq had a hand in 9/11.  Iraq was never even a part of the original Axis of Evil either.

Huh? Yeah he did. In the speech where he coined the term "axis of evil", he specifically named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

 

Yes, but this was all presented to us as "He HAS WMD and we KNOW where they are!"

 

Yeah, that bothers me too. For all the talk about WMDs existing in present-day Iraq prior to the invasion, there's been embarassingly little evidence found.

 

No, it wasn't...no need for Iraq to be a named part of any axis of evil as invasion plans were already drawn up by then with the Bush administration frothing at the mouth to invade Iraq.

 

That's one thing I don't understand: the assertation that Bush invaded Iraq just for the hell of it. Why in the world would we undertake such a mission if we didn't have some good reason? And do NOT say "It's for the oil!", we've spent far, FAR more money on the invasion and occupation than we could even hope to recover from oils sales until a very long time from now.

 

Because there have been interactions with Iraq and Al Queda for starters. Saying they had something to do with 9/11 and are involved with Al Queda are completely different things.

 

Yeah, there have been "interactions", but I doubt Saddam and Osama were ever really plotting together against us. Bin Ladin's uber-conservative religious beliefs probably wouldn't let him trust someone like the highly secular Hussein.

 

No he should be blamed for not having a solid reason for invading Iraq, attempting to spin truths for support and leading the people to believe things that aren't true...  He wants us to believe Saddam is somehow responsible for 9/11, it's the only all-uniting justification he has.

 

America (or any country, for that matter) had PLENTY of justification for removing Saddam from power. He was a mass-murdering tyrant who viciously abused his own people (including using WMDs on them), invaded Kuwait, fired missles at Israel, tried to assassinate a US president, and pretty much ignored every single thing the U.N. ever told him to do. He was BEGGING to be taken out.

 

My problem with the whole affair is Bush's lack of PR tact with other countries and his leaning on shady reasoning for the invasion in the first place. (I mean, there's gotta be SOME reason why, even after 9/11, we still came out the most hated country in the world.)

 

He was trying to build WMD's? I must have missed all those WMD finds ....

 

Yes, he was TRYING to build nuclear weapons; did you miss the entire article in the first post of this thread?

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

Huh? Yeah he did. In the speech where he coined the term "axis of evil", he specifically named Iraq, Iran, and North Korea.

 

Opps.... got mixed up.

 

 

Yeah, there have been "interactions", but I doubt Saddam and Osama were ever really plotting together against us. Bin Ladin's uber-conservative religious beliefs probably wouldn't let him trust someone like the highly secular Hussein.

 

My point was that while Iraq probably has helped Al Queda before that it's poor and lazy logic to assume because someone talks about Iraq/Al Queda links means that Iraq was involved in 9/11.

 

That's one thing I don't understand: the assertation that Bush invaded Iraq just for the hell of it. Why in the world would we undertake such a mission if we didn't have some good reason? And do NOT say "It's for the oil!", we've spent far, FAR more money on the invasion and occupation than we could even hope to recover from oils sales until a very long time from now.

 

This is bitching just for the sake of bitching on INXS's part. Oh course they had a plan to go to Iraq so did Clinton. Why wouldn't an administration have plans for a nation that's been trouble in the past.