Monday :: Jul 21, 2003

Iraq Uranium Charge


by Mary

Posted by Mary

The media is tenaciously tracking the charge that Iraq was recently trying to buy nuclear materials. The fascinating thing about this story is how it didn't blow up in the Bush faces before the war started. The evidence was so shoddy that it is a surprise that anyone fell for it. This weekend, an Italian journalist, Elisabetta Burba, who passed on the documents to the US in October 2002 said she didn't think the story was credible after doing some checking in Niger so she just passed them on to the US Embassy in Italy. So what data was being used to back up this claim in the UK and the US before October? One theory was that both intelligence agencies got summary documentation from Italy that they then used as evidence.

Notice the timeline on this story:

  • Late 2001, rumors of Iraq trying to buy uranium from Niger are picked up. The rumors are passed to both the UK and the US, but its possible neither shared what they got with each other.
  • Feb 2002, Joseph Wilson is sent by the CIA (on the behest of the VP's office) to Niger to try to validate the rumor, doesn't see documents but does conclude that there is no validity to the claim.
  • Mar 2002, Wilson files a report with the CIA and expects them to pass this report to the VP's office.
  • Sep 24, 2002, the British government publishes Sept dossier including the charge that Iraq has been trying to purchase uranium from Africa.
  • Sep 26, 2002, Colin Powell uses charge in his testimony before Senate Intelligence Committee.
  • Oct 2002, Burba passes on Niger documents. Who gets them? The CIA doesn't see them until Feb. Someone hangs onto them for awhile. (Was it the VP's office? Or the State Dept?)
  • Oct 7, 2002, Bush gives a speech in Cincinnati but only after Tenet removed the uranium purchase claim.
  • Oct 2002, Classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) includes the charge. How did it get in there?
  • Oct 2002, CIA warns the British that they think the uranium purchase charge is faulty. The British say, we think it is still good.
  • Dec 19, 2002, CIA/State Dept publish a fact sheet in response to Iraq's comprehensive report with Niger claim specifically called out as something Iraq lied about since it wasn't included in that report.
  • Jan 28, 2003, President Bush's SOTU address includes the now famous 16 words -- this time referring to British intelligence and a non-specific country in Africa after some arguing with the CIA.
  • Feb 5, 2003, Colin Powell refuses to use this charge. Had he seen the documents and realized they were really bad?
  • Feb 2003, CIA finally gets a copy of the documents. They are also passed on to the IAEA.
  • Mar 7, 2003, IAEA reports the documents are forged.

So who created the documents? Why didn't the US get a copy until Oct? Did the British ever get them? Did the British validate their evidence or just let it get put into the dossier because they were just vacuuming up all rumors and gossip that would put Saddam in a bad light? It is very clear, the Niger charge has been completely debunked, so to what country does Britain's "additional" evidence point? Why didn't the administration hand over the documents to the CIA? Did they hold on to them, knowing they were very weak until the war was a foregone conclusion? Greg Thielmann retired in Sep 2002 from the State Department, but he says they already knew months ago the Niger data was bad.

But I would just remind you that much of the critical assessment of this occurred months before it became known to the public. And on both of these things, in the case of Niger, at least from the State Department's perspective, INR's perspective, this was a bad report; it wasn't worth wasting any more time on.

And as George Tenet has said repeatedly, the CIA didn't think much of the evidence either. So who put it into the NIE? And who added it to the fact sheet?

Oh, and that claim that Blair made about Saddam buying uranium from Niger in the 80s? Never happened, says France.

France has a substantial stake in the two companies that mine, process and export uranium, and its movement is "perfectly controlled". The ambassador told The Sunday Telegraph: "The mining companies check and monitor the amounts that leave Niger all the way from the mines to the ports. If any were to go missing, it would be very obvious and the inspectors would pick it up straight away."

Thanks to Laura for the articles that led to this post.

Mary :: 6:32 AM :: Comments (17) :: Spotlight :: Digg It!