Skip to content or view screen version

Is the Office of Strategic Influence working so good?

Guido | 14.07.2003 15:53 | Analysis

Last week, some CIA-people said they warned the Bush-administration about the fact that the story about that Iraq would get uranium from Niger was not reliable and it should not have been put in the State of The Union this year. Let's go back to March this year...



In March this year some articles appeared in which was written that the CIA warned Bush and co about the uranium from Niger. Just before that the end of February, the UEAI said also the uranium-claim was forged.


Following are some parts of articles about this subject, all from March. In fact, at that time, the White House admitted it's fault.

Fantasy replaced fiction which replaced reality, no?


>>>

Published on Saturday, March 22, 2003 by the Washington Post
CIA Questioned Documents Linking Iraq, Uranium Ore
by Dana Priest and Karen DeYoung

"CIA officials now say they communicated significant doubts to the administration about the evidence backing up charges that Iraq tried to purchase uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons, charges that found their way into President Bush's State of the Union address, a State Department "fact sheet" and public remarks by numerous senior officials.That evidence was dismissed as a forgery early this month by United Nations officials investigating Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. The Bush administration does not dispute this conclusion.Asked how the administration came to back up one of its principal allegations against Iraq with information its own intelligence service considered faulty, officials said all such assertions were carefully tailored to stay within the bounds of certainty."
 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0322-04.htm

 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A9011-2003Mar22?language=printer




A letter of Harry Waxman to Bush:

March 17, 2003


"The evidence in question is correspondence that indicates that Iraq sought to obtain nuclear material from an African country, Niger. For several months, this evidence has been a central part of the U.S. case against Iraq. On December 19, the State Department filed a response to Iraq’s disarmament declaration to the U.N. Security Council. The State Department response stated: “The Declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger.” A month later, in your State of the Union address, you stated: “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” Defense Secretary Rumsfeld subsequently cited the evidence in briefing reporters.

It has now been conceded that this evidence was a forgery. On March 7, the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that the evidence that Iraq sought nuclear materials from Niger was “not authentic.” As subsequent media accounts indicated, the evidence contained “crude errors,” such as a “childlike signature” and the use of stationary from a military government in Niger that has been out of power for over a decade.

Even more troubling, however, the CIA, which has been aware of this information since 2001, has never regarded the evidence as reliable. The implications of this fact are profound: it means that a key part of the case you have been building against Iraq is evidence that your own intelligence experts at the Central Intelligence Agency do not believe is credible."
 http://www.house.gov/waxman/text/admin_iraq_march_17_let.htm


CIA analysts do a CYA, telling the press, Don't blame the phony nuke docs on us!

By Jack Shafer

Posted Sunday, March 23, 2003, at 1:37 PM PT

"The CIA covers its ass today in both the Washington Post and the New York Times, further distancing itself from the forged documents the Bush administration forwarded to the United Nations to support its case that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium. News that the documents were forged has given succor to Bush administration critics, who accuse the government of ginning up evidence against Iraq to justify war."

 http://slate.msn.com/id/2080583/











Guido
- e-mail: pannekoekrobert@hotmail.com

Comments

Hide the following comment

see also

14.07.2003 17:51

Public was misled, claim ex-CIA men

31-05-2003


"A GROUP of former US intelligence officials has written to President Bush claiming that the US Congress and the American public were misled about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction before the war.

The groupâ s members, most of them former CIA analysts, say that they have close contacts with senior officials working inside the US intelligence agencies, who have told them that intelligence was â cookedâ to persuade Congress to authorise the war.

The manipulation of intelligence has, they say, produced â a policy and intelligence fiasco of monumental proportionsâ . They write in the letter to Mr Bush: â While there have been occasions in the past when intelligence has been deliberately warped for political purposes, never before has such warping been used in such a systematic way to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorise launching a war."

 http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/news/news.php?sub=705



see also:


May 1, 2003

Not Worth the Paper It's Written On?
Intelligence Fiasco


"Forgery

One of the many lawmakers who believe they were deceived last summer and fall, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) wrote you a letter on March 17, asking that you explain why "evidence" that your administration knew to be forged was used with him and others to garner votes for the war. Waxman was referring to bogus correspondence purporting to show that Iraq was trying to obtain in Africa uranium for nuclear weapons, and noted that it was the perceived need to prevent Iraq from developing nuclear weapons that provided "the most persuasive justification" for war. The continued lack of any White House response to Waxmana's letter can only feed the suspicion that there is no innocent explanation and that the use of the forged material was deliberate.

Determined to find out what had happened, Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), vice-chair of the Senate intelligence oversight committee, suggested that the committee ask the FBI investigate, but committee chair Pat Roberts (R-OK) resisted "giving a fresh meaning to the word "oversight." Roberts said through a spokeswoman that it was "inappropriate for the FBI to investigate at this point." Roberts then declined to join Rockefeller in signing a letter to the FBI requesting an investigation. Rockefeller sent one anyway but the response he has just received from the Bureau was a brush-off. Unless you give FBI Director Robert Mueller different instructions, it appears doubtful that any genuine investigation will take place.

Rep. Waxman is right to point out that the specter of Saddam Hussein armed with nuclear weapons was the crucial element that convinced many representatives and senators to vote to give you the authority to use military force against Iraq. It is now clear that bogus intelligence fed lawmakers' fears before the vote on October 11, 2002."

 http://www.counterpunch.org/vips05012003.html




What did the president know, and when did he know it? the Achilles heel ?


Support Rep. Henry Waxman's efforts to investigate the use of the forged documents that allowed the manufacture of submission, if not consent, to the Iraq war.

 http://www.geocities.com/themank/forged_docs.html

Guido
mail e-mail: pannekoekrobert@hotmail.com