| Submit your comments on this article |
| Fifth Column |
| Safire Perpetuates Error on Niger |
| 2004-06-30 |
| By WILLIAM SAFIRE The column is interesting and deals with various things, but below are just the parts concerning the uranium/Niger/Iraq matter. There must be something magical about this topic -- first the WH and most observers have been unable to point out that Bush never mentioned Niger in the SOTU, and now Safire takes the disconnect to a new level, incorrectly implying that the British intel assessment relied on forged documents. Odd. ... But certitude is an uncertain thing. Take, for example, the assumption now taken as fact that Saddam’s Iraq was not seeking the raw material for the production of atomic weapons. Remember Bush’s claim in last year’s State of the Union address about Iraq’s negotiating with an African nation for the "yellowcake" refined from uranium ore? Bush referred to Iraq seeking uranium in Africa, he didn’t specify how many or which nations, and his basis was a British intelligence assessment-- this is key When it turned out that this suspicion was based on forged documents, the embarrassed C.I.A. and humiliated White House confessed error. Error by Safire. The British made it very clear their assessment took NO account of the forged documents Great and gleeful derision was heaped on Bush for misleading the world on one of the three bases for intervention... And neither you nor the WH could straighten people out on their basic factual errors Comes now a front-page story in The Financial Times by Mark Huband, that international newspaper’s security correspondent, headlined "Intelligence Backs Claims Iraq Had Talks on Uranium." Were the documents on which Bush based his charge fake? False premise, Bush didn’t base his charge on any fake documents Yes; though "legal constraints" prevent the F.T. and the Italian magazine Panorama from identifying the suspected forger, the source is reportedly a convicted con man who tried to peddle phony yellowcake papers to several spy services. No wonder everybody belatedly ran from any notion that Iraq sought the uranium product from Niger. Wrong. The Brits didn’t run, they stood by their estimate, and two separate parliamentary bodies examining related matters publicly stated that they found the Africa/uranium assessment reasonable. But hold that horselaugh: "Embarrassment on fake documents obscured earlier intelligence that Iraq may have been trying to buy uranium," notes an F.T. subheading. Huband writes: "Three intelligence services were aware of possible illicit trade in uranium from Niger between 1999 and 2001. Human intelligence . . . 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 programs." A close reading of the article suggests the original human source was Italian, whose tip was confirmed by British and French electronic intercepts. C.I.A. analysts, who often disdain data not gathered by us, ignored the real thing until they were suckered by the forged documents... A "close reading" of the SOTU and subsequent British statements would have obviated this whole discussion In the months and years ahead, we are highly likely (almost wrote "sure") to get more evidence from seekers after W.M.D. truth. These range from the new Iraqi government to ousted officials, from the coalition’s official team to freelance former spooks and serious journalists. "serious journalists"? Wow, email me a list, so I can read their stuff, please Don’t jump to hasty derision. Promise I won’t, if you’ll look at things a little more closely yourself next time. As Mark Twain advised, the problem is not just what we don’t know, but what we do know that ain’t so. Uh, my point exactly. |
| Posted by:Verlaine |