Damage Control, the Dance Begins . . .

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Already read it. Not sure what you are so happy about, it further proves the statement was siad with nothing credible to back it up.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Item 1) Burned - Good point on the French Intelligence. France has controling parternership in somewhere near 85%
of the Nigerian Uranium Mining investments. Their blocking source information would be self protecting.

Item 2) Michael - 2 posts, 1st from Reuters News Agency - direct link, 2nd from Associated Press reporter - direct link.
If the New York Times has a problem with authencicity they should contact thier news pool for beeing late to the dance.
I have no intent of crediting the NYT as I did NOT get this from them, but they may have bought copy from the pair.

 

[konichiwa]

Originally posted by: Michael
Vadatajs - I'm not likely to "give it a rest". I think the law is being broken and I have a right (unless the Mods say no) to post what I feel.

Michael

You've got to be kidding. Are you their copyright lawyer? Nobody wants to hear your feigned good samaritan act.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: burnedout
French secret service 'kept CIA in the dark over Iraq and uranium'

By Michael Smith, Defence Correspondent
(Filed: 14/07/2003)

"The French secret service is believed to have refused to allow MI6 to give the Americans "credible" intelligence showing that Iraq was trying to buy uranium ore from Niger, US intelligence sources said yesterday...............They dismissed a report from a former US diplomat who was sent to Niger to investigate the claims and rejected them. "He seems to have asked a few people if it was true and when they said 'no' he accepted it all," one official said. "We see no reason at all to change our assessment.""

Straw defends UK uranium evidence

Interesting articles. The part you quoted isn't terribly useful -- it's an unsubstantiated potshot -- but there is more interesting information in the article itself.

Note that these articles sometimes contradict an article I posted yesterday:

From Sunday's Glasgow Sunday Herald, Niger and Iraq: the war's biggest lie?
Investigation: Neil Mackay reveals why everyone now accepts that claims Saddam Hussein got uranium from Africa are fraudulent ... except, that is, Britain's beleaguered prime minister and his Cabinet supporters

In February 1999, Wissam Al Zahawie, the Iraqi ambassador to the Holy See in Rome, set off on a series of diplomatic visits to several African countries, including Niger. This trip triggered the allegations that Iraq was trying to buy tons of uranium from Niger -- a claim which could yet prove the most damning evidence that the British government exaggerated intelligence to bolster its case for war on Iraq .

Some time after the Iraqi ambassador's trip to Niger, the Italian intelligence service came into possession of forged documents claiming Saddam was after Niger uranium. We now know these documents were passed to MI6 and then handed by the British to the office of US Vice-President Dick Cheney . The forgeries were then used by Bush and Blair to scare the British and Americans and to box both Congress and Parliament into supporting war. There are an increasing number of claims suggesting Bush and Blair knew these documents were forged when they used them as evidence that Saddam Hussein was putting together a nuclear arsenal.

[ ... ]

Also significant was the refusal by Colin Powell to use the uranium claim when he addressed the UN on February 5 calling for war. On Thursday, Powell said it was not 'sufficiently reliable'. With Bush trying to get off the hook, Blair looks as if he could be twisting in the wind -- unless he has this 'other evidence' to back up the Niger connection. It should be pointed out that it would be extremely difficult for Niger to sell uranium in quantities large enough to be weaponised as its mines are controlled by France and its entire output goes to France, Japan and Spain. E xperts say it couldn't be smuggled out unnoticed. One western diplomat said: 'As far as I know, the only other evidence Britain has about the Niger connection is based on intelligence coming from other western countries which saw the same forgeries. Blair's claim that he has other evidence is nonsense. These foreign intelligence agencies are basing their claims on the same forgeries as the Brits.'

The diplomat's accusations tally with a letter sent in April, before the White House climbdown, by the State Department to Democrat House of Representative's member Henry Waxman, who has been demanding answers on the deception carried out against the American and British people. In it, the State Department admits that it received intelligence from the UK and another 'western European ally' -- which many believe to be Italy -- that Iraq was trying to buy Niger uranium. But it adds: 'not until March 4 did we learn that, in fact, the second western European government had based its assessment on the evidence already available to the US that was subsequently discredited'. In other words, as one intelligence source said: 'It was based on the same crap the British used'. Given the letter is dated April 29, this information invites the question: why did it take until last week for the White House to admit the Niger connection was rubbish?

[ ... ]

'If I was prosecuting someone in a court of law and I brought in what I knew to be forgeries in an attempt to convict you, the case would be thrown out immediately and it'd be me in the dock. The case wasn't thrown out against Iraq, however, and what we are left with is an ominous sense of the way intelligence was treated to promote war. There are only two conclusions: one is that Britain has intelligence but kept it from the weapons inspectors, which they should not have done under international law, or that they don't have a thing. If they did have intelligence, then why not show it to the world now the war is over'.

An IAEA source said the issue was 'now a matter for the UK and the USA to deal with'. The IAEA, as well as UNMOVIC inspectors, feel discredited and humiliated after their bruising encounters with the UK and US. One UN diplomat said: 'They're bitter, but perhaps now they may have some solace as the truth seems to be coming out. It's obvious that we could have done this without a war -- but the evidence shows war would have happened regardless of what the inspectors could have done as that was the wish of Bush and Blair. Everyone, it seems, was working for peace -- except them.'

This is an interesting article which covers a broad range of items related to Iraq's nuclear activities.

I guess we'll have to see if Britain ever releases its evidence, possibly refuting some claims in this article, or whether they cling to the lame "We do too have it, but you have to take our word for it." Stay tuned.

 

[Michael]

konichiwa - I'll post what I damned will want to unless a mod tells me otherwise. You can comment back to me if you want, but otherwise, piss off. In this case, I'm not the one breaking the law.

Michael

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
First of all, you guys are believing the FRENCH? Wow. Secondly, this whole thing is rather convoluted, but the point still remains that our own CIA has said that the statement should not have been included in the president's speech. Are you suggesting that the CIA's only reason for not allowing it is because they had not been allowed to see the British Intel? If the CIA isn't discrediting the intel the statement was based on, why didn't they just say something like, "Well, we don't have any direct evidence of this, however the British do." I don't know, this is starting to sound like the plot of some spy movie or something...

The Niger stuff was not allowed becuase it was a fake and was deamed so by the CIA last October. The SOTU claim is different - it uses British intel which says that the faked Niger document was not the only intel it has. See the difference?

Oh, and it seems we now have a better understanding of where that Niger document originated Forged Documents Sold to Italians. Guess the French are off the hook for now😉 🙂 Although them may be the british source for the "other" intel.

CkG

 

[MonkeyK]

CkG,
Don't put too much faith in your Article, it claims that the VP was pushing the CIA for the intel on the document. (And the Admin claims otherwise)

 

[burnedout]

New hope for WMD evidence or another false alarm?

THE US has discovered what it believes is decisive proof of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs and taken the material to the US for testing.

US Undersecretary of State John Bolton told The Weekend Australian the US had evidence it hoped would prove Iraq's previous possession of WMD.

Well-informed sources have now told The Weekend Australian that US soldiers made the discovery in Iraq two weeks ago. They believe the material will contain chemical weapons materials.

However, the material was not in a pristine or readily identifiable state when it was discovered and it was decided to take it back to the US for comprehensive laboratory testing.

The US has decided to be extremely careful in making any public claims about this material as it wants to be absolutely sure of its status.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: MonkeyK
CkG,
Don't put too much faith in your Article, it claims that the VP was pushing the CIA for the intel on the document. (And the Admin claims otherwise)

ABC has been spouting this "new" story all night on it's radio news. So I looked for the relevant link on their news site. I haven't looked any further into it since I had a different thread to attend to😉

CkG