The Niger connection

[Nottingham]

The Niger connection

How did a poor African nation become crucial to justifying war in Iraq? Now doubts over intelligence claims that Saddam sought uranium from Niger threaten a damaging split between the US and Britain write Peter Beaumont and Edward Helmore in New York

Sunday July 13, 2003
The Observer

In the tunnels of Akouta in Niger, the miners dig for a dark and heavy ore, tar-like in lustre. In economic terms it is as precious as gold. But for some its worth far outweighs its financial value. For carried in these ores is uranium, the ninety-second element on the periodic table, and the fuel for an atomic bomb.
For three decades the miners of Niger have carried on their business, largely unnoticed by all except those who follow the heavy metal markets.

Now suddenly the uranium mines of Niger - and those seeking to do business with them for their uranium ores - have been thrown into the sharpest relief by a question that may have crucially influenced the decision of the US and Britain to go to war against Saddam Hussein.

more.....

http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/redir.php?jid=6b4912f6eadd3afc

He did it He did it! NO! You did it You did it! :bounce:

[grasswire]

1. Nottingham?

You have been finding some good stuff lately!!

[Nottingham]

7. Thanks Grasswire! Just been lucky! DU has been an Inspiration!

My kids have given me a name. Intelligent Agent. I go grab some Intelligence in this Stoopid World and bring it back for those to read.

I think thats what the DUers are all Intelligent Agents

:bounce:

[goore2004]

2. Yeah, but...

In the 1980’s Iraq purchased apporx. 200 or more tons of uranium from Niger. The evidence that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from so-called ‘forged’Italian documents, they came from separate intelligence.

The line from the SOTUS
“The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.”

The British gov't did learn this. Bush reported this to the country. Where is the lie. I don't understand. Don't forget that the Brits are still standing behind this.

This CIA did not say this info was definately false, they just could not prove it to be true to the extent they felt comfortable with.

[Maeve]

3. Do tell

"In the 1980’s Iraq purchased apporx. 200 or more tons of uranium from Niger. The evidence that the Iraqi government had gone back to try to purchase further amounts of uranium from Niger did not come from so-called ‘forged’Italian documents, they came from separate intelligence"

Please document this claim.

[Kellanved]

4. That's incorrect

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2607081.stm
--snip
The prime minister of Niger, Hama Hamadou, has confirmed that Iraq tried to buy uranium from it in the 1980s, but he said the offer had been rejected.
--snap

Besides: in the 80s Iraq was perfectly allowed to have Uranium .
Nice Guys, now with the *administration, sold all the good stuff to Iraq in that time.

Edit: shold have been a reply to #2; Sorry

[goore2004]

12. Then why was it rejected?

If they could buy uranium in the 80's why was the attempt rejected. Sounds like a little cya by Hama to me.

[mac56]

6. Yeah, I'm curious about that too.

Eager to see your source on this, Goore.

[robbedvoter]

5. OK, Goore, when you say: "Boo! You'll be nuked - unless I act"

to the country, to the world - better be sure about it or face the stink. We KNOW it was a lie - there's no uranium in Iraq. CIA knew last year it was a lie (Tenet took it out of W's speech in Ohio last October, told the Brits to chuck it). And what's moore, Goore, this was ONE OF THE MANY LIES IN THE SOTU (nuclear program, aluminium tubes, OBL connection , specifics on WMD - akk debunked before the speech was written (and carefully revised by your hero). It's not about sex, Goore, it's not about the lies even, it's really about the loss of lives - THOUSANDS OF THEM. Can you see a problem now? (PS - couple of hundreds of those lives were Americans, some of them actually white!!!!)

[goore2004]

11. Here's a little info to backup

First of all, Gbush is not my hero. I am totally objective and am not too crazy about bush for lots of reasons, but there is still some defense for him. As I posted earlier. The 200 or so tons purchased earlier in Niger by Iraq was mentioned by Blair in a speech last week. I heard this on the radio and don't have proof in writing of this. This link backs up that claim

"On the surface the claims appeared to make sense. It was already known that Iraq had bought yellowcake from Niger in the 1980s. That nuclear programme had been dismantled, but nobody knew for certain whether or not Saddam had tried to resurrect it. The Niger documents offered tantalising evidence."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-523-743587,00.html

If the link doesn't work, search for 'blair uranium speech....'
the article is called 'How spies tarnished intell..."



You can't really say all those things were lies in the SOTUS. There is plenty of evidence to back up everything. If you don't trust or want to believe, you won't. That is human nature. We all belived Clinton and his claims of WMD. Is that b/c we wanted to belive. Sure, he didn't take over the whole country, but the justification was the same.
I'm not a Republican, but I do believe enough of the claims concerning Iraq to apporve of the war.

[Blue_Roses]

18. Clinton did not say

that they had a nuke program started. He said that if left to his own accord (Saddam) he would more than likely develop them. It wasn't known by Clinton either...why do you think he took so much heat from bombing the "so-called" asprin factories in '98. It looks like he was given false intelligence about this also. Could this have been a joke on Clinton since the right-wingers were out to hang him anyway? If this would have been Clinton making this decision for the "pre-emptive" war, poo-poo would be hitting the fan. Why does GW get off scott free...I think we all know that reason and it's just about to hit the fan as well.

GW, rummy, and especially dickey boy salivated at the thought of seizing Iraq's oil fields and nothing was gonna stop them...not even the CIA telling them that the info was false. Now it looks like they have turned on the CIA...something tells me that might not have been a wise idea, but then we are talking about GW now.

:eyes:

[Devils Advocate NZ]

22. I'm sorry but...

both this claim, and your defense of it are full of shit!

Basically, what you are saying is that a Government that is accused of lying is actually telling the truth, because another Government that is accused of lying SAYS that its the truth! They have presented no evidence, and just expect us to believe it because they say so!

Are they fucking nuts? Or do they think we are? Bollocks!

But here is the truly astounding part: The British are not actually saying they know the accusation is true, they are saying that some other unnamed third country told them that it was true! And so we are expected to trust the intelligence gathered by a nation that is not even willing to stand by their own intelligence!

Can't you see what this is: It is a game of hot potato! The US says that Britian says that someone else says that Iraq tried to buy Uranium from Niger! Oh yeah? Bullshit!

[ze_dscherman]

8. Why didn't Britain give this information to the IAEO?

After all, the IAEO had declared the Niger documents were forgeries and that Iraq had no nuclear program. If the Brits had this evidence, why didn they withhold such vital information from the UN inspectors?


Looking on the poor arguments Straw gives, he seems desparate:

He claimed that technicalities of process prevented the UK from sharing additional spying information with the US, since alternative evidence of a Niger connection came from a third country's intelligence agency and Britain did not have permission to pass it on.

"It just happens to be one of the rules of liaison with foreign intelligence services that they own the intelligence," he said.

"The second intelligence service does not and therefore we are not able to pass it on to the third party."

SNIP

As the row over weapons of mass destruction continued Mr Straw announced that technical documentation and centrifuge parts "which are necessary for the enrichment of uranium" had been found buried at the home of an Iraqi scientist in the centre of Baghdad.

"People don't bury technical documents, still less parts of centrifuges unless they have a purpose in doing so," said Mr Straw.

"And it is difficult to believe there was any purpose in doing so except that preparations were being made for the further development of a nuclear programme."


Source: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,997938,00.html

[Maeve]

9. And people don't BURY centrifuge parts

If they have an ON-GOING program.

We didn't go to war over a "future" program.

[goore2004]

13. They had a past and possibly future program

We did go to war on the possiblilty of a future nuclear program. It was a pre-emptive war, whether you like the reasons or not. Do we just believe Iraq had a nuke program and dropped it forever?

[Maeve]

16. No, we were told there was an ongoing program

Wasn't one and indications are that we knew that.

[TahitiNut]

23. "program"??

Nope. A 'program' wasn't the rationale; 'weapons' were the rationale. People aren't killed by 'programs'. 'Pogroms' certainly, but not 'programs'.

[robbedvoter]

10. Ze French must have prevented him - stuffed cheese in his mouth

or something .
I don't want to trivialize this, but I just read that the Brits blame France for not sharing Niger intelligence and I couldn't help it, being Basille Day and all.

[Nottingham]

15. Robbedvoter!! LMAO!!

That was too perfect!!:bounce:

[goore2004]

14. in I.A.E.O. we trust

'After all, the IAEO had declared the Niger documents were forgeries and that Iraq had no nuclear program.'

O,K. if they say the docs were forged we can belive that, but what the hell do they know about Iraq's nuclear program. So they are saying that because some docs were forged about buying uranium, now there is not even a nuclear program. Quite a strectch.

[bvar22]

17. I'm looking for a TOTALLY OBJECTIVE opinion form...

...someone who claims to be TOTALLY OBJECTIVE.

Did Iraq pose an immediate threat to the security of the USA?

[ze_dscherman]

20. Obviously you did not inform yourself

who the IAEO is and what role they play in Iraq. They are the International Atomic Energy Organisation - e.g. the nuclear watchdog on non-proliferation sources. They did *not* base their declaration on the forgeries, but on extensive investigations in Iraq. These are not intelligence wannabes that base their reports on cut-and-paste info or some "third state" allegiations, but on the observations on the spot.

They were the ones who sealed all the nuclear sites in Iraq, that the U.S. did not think necessary to protect even weeks after the occupation. And they are the ones that Iran has tried to stop from closer inspections.

[Oilwellian]

24. We've had control of Iraq for 3 months now

Where is this mysteriously elusive nuclear program? Plus, if we were so concerned about Iraq's nuclear capabilities and concern about uranium getting into Saddam's or terrorists hands, why didn't we immediately take control of and guard the partially enriched uranium we KNEW existed in Iraq and instead allowed it to be looted by who knows who? Hmmmm?

[Kellanved]

19. Have a look at this

It's a translated transcript of a German news show (public television, slightly leaning to the right) aired in March:
I don' know why this story took so long to get to the US.
http://www.zdf.de/ZDFde/inhalt/30/0,1872,2052990,00.html

--snip
...
Iraq submitted its weapons report in December, three months later, as demanded by the UN. The US government immediately criticised the report, accusing Iraq of concealing important information. As evidence, the USA delivered that very information from the dubious letters which were handed over in Italy - in other words, the forged documents.
...
Evidence meant to justify the war
And finally the climax: the publication of the forgeries. In his State of the Union speech before Congress on January 28, George W. Bush prepared the American public for war against Iraq. With the following justification, amongst others: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligent sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high strength aluminium tubes, suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained his activities. He clearly has much to hide."

To summarise: the American President and the British Prime Minister publicly claimed that Iraq was pursuing a dangerous and illegal nuclear weapons programme, using the correspondence between Iraq and the authorities in Niger as the main evidence. The problem is that the evidence is flawed: the documents are amateurish forgeries.
...
For Wolbert Smidt it is clear: "When a piece of information is delivered to the politicians, it takes its own path; the services no longer have any control over it, and political interests prevail." And the political interests of the USA and Great Britain are shown every day at the borders with Iraq.
--snap

[Nottingham]

21. Oh Kell is that not an Awesome report! Thank you Thank you!

I see this :nuke: Blowing up in Bush's face!