Bush knows more than the CIA, right?
2007-12-28
06:35:16
·
8 answers
·
asked by
Chi Guy
5
in
Politics & Government
➔ Politics
CIA doubts
In early October 2002, George Tenet called Deputy National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley to ask him to remove reference to the Niger uranium from a speech Bush was to give in Cincinnati on October 7. This was followed up by a memo asking Hadley to remove another, similar line. Another memo was sent to the White House expressing the CIA's view that the Niger claims were false; this memo was given to both Hadley and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice
http://www.answers.com/topic/niger-uranium-forgeries
2007-12-28
15:50:29 ·
update #1
They naively thought he would listen to them
Government agencies get used to certain policies and stick with them for years. The CIA had no idea Bush would not listen to them or make up his own intelligence reports
2007-12-28 06:39:24
·
answer #1
·
answered by Guerilla Liberal fighter 3
·
5⤊
3⤋
It's my understanding that after the CIA's inquiries they lacked evidence to suppose that Iraq was attempting to buy uranium. At least, I know that was the case with Wilson. They made many inquiries, and the details of them will probably be kept secret for a long time to protect the identities of those that served in the operations(s).
2007-12-28 16:57:15
·
answer #2
·
answered by Pfo 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I believe that when Bush leaves office and looses control of the various agencies and hard tough questions start being asked and provided a Democrat wins the up coming Pres. elections, loosens up some of those freedom of information screws Bush & Co screwed down to hide info on his father's political years, some interesting things my happen.
2007-12-28 14:58:42
·
answer #3
·
answered by Dave M 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Chi, read the last two paragraphs.
"The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa .” Some of his critics called that a lie, but the new evidence shows Bush had reason to say what he did
A British intelligence review released July 14 calls Bush’s 16 words “well founded.”
A separate report by the US Senate Intelligence Committee said July 7 that the US also had similar information from “a number of intelligence reports,” a fact that was classified at the time Bush spoke.
Ironically, former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, who later called Bush’s 16 words a “lie”, supplied information that the Central Intelligence Agency took as confirmation that Iraq may indeed have been seeking uranium from Niger.
Both the US and British investigations make clear that some forged Italian documents, exposed as fakes soon after Bush spoke, were not the basis for the British intelligence Bush cited, or the CIA's conclusion that Iraq was trying to get uranium.
None of the new information suggests Iraq ever nailed down a deal to buy uranium, and the Senate report makes clear that US intelligence analysts have come to doubt whether Iraq was even trying to buy the stuff. In fact, both the White House and the CIA long ago conceded that the 16 words shouldn’t have been part of Bush’s speech.
But what he said – that Iraq sought uranium – is just what both British and US intelligence were telling him at the time. So Bush may indeed have been misinformed, but that's not the same as lying.
The Butler report said British intelligence had "credible" information -- from several sources -- that a 1999 visit by Iraqi officials to Niger was for the purpose of buying uranium:
Butler Report: It is accepted by all parties that Iraqi officials visited Niger in 1999. The British Government had intelligence from several different sources indicating that this visit was for the purpose of acquiring uranium. Since uranium constitutes almost three-quarters of Niger’s exports, the intelligence was credible.
The Butler Report affirmed what the British government had said about the Niger uranium story back in 2003, and specifically endorsed what Bush said as well.
Butler Report: By extension, we conclude also that the statement in President Bush’s State of the Union Address of 28 January 2003 that “The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa” was well-founded.
The Senate Intelligence Committee Report
The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence reported July 7, 2004 that the CIA had received reports from a foreign government (not named, but probably Britain) that Iraq had actually concluded a deal with Niger to supply 500 tons a year of partially processed uranium ore, or "yellowcake." That is potentially enough to produce 50 nuclear warheads.
The Senate report said the CIA then asked a "former ambassador" to go to Niger and report. That is a reference to Joseph Wilson -- who later became a vocal critic of the President's 16 words. The Senate report said Wilson brought back denials of any Niger-Iraq uranium sale, and argued that such a sale wasn't likely to happen. But the Intelligence Committee report also reveals that Wilson brought back something else as well -- evidence that Iraq may well have wanted to buy uranium.
Wilson reported that he had met with Niger's former Prime Minister Ibrahim Mayaki, who said that in June 1999 he was asked to meet with a delegation from Iraq to discuss "expanding commercial relations" between the two countries.
Based on what Wilson told them, CIA analysts wrote an intelligence report saying former Prime Minister Mayki "interpreted 'expanding commercial relations' to mean that the (Iraqi) delegation wanted to discuss uranium yellowcake sales." In fact, the Intelligence Committee report said that "for most analysts" Wilson's trip to Niger "lent more credibility to the original Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) reports on the uranium deal."
In the CIA's view, Wilson's report bolstered suspicions that Iraq was indeed seeking uranium in Africa. The Senate report cited an intelligence officer who reviewed Wilson’s report upon his return from Niger:
Committee Report: He (the intelligence officer) said he judged that the most important fact in the report was that the Nigerian officials admitted that the Iraqi delegation had traveled there in 1999, and that the Nigerian Prime Minister believed the Iraqis were interested in purchasing uranium, because this provided some confirmation of foreign government service reporting.
At this point the CIA also had received "several intelligence reports" alleging that Iraq wanted to buy uranium from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and from Somalia, as well as from Niger. The Intelligence Committee concluded that "it was reasonable for analysts to assess that Iraq may have been seeking uranium from Africa based on Central Intelligence Agency reporting and other available intelligence."
Both the Butler report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report make clear that Bush's 16 words weren't based on the fake documents. The British didn't even see them until after issuing the reports -- based on other sources -- that Bush quoted in his 16 words. But discovery of the Italian fraud did trigger a belated reassessment of the Iraq/Niger story by the CIA.
Once the CIA was certain that the Italian documents were forgeries, it said in an internal memorandum that "we no longer believe that there is sufficient other reporting to conclude that Iraq pursued uranium from abroad." But that wasn't until June 17, 2003 -- nearly five months after Bush's 16 words.
Senate Report: When coordinating the State of the Union, no Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analysts or officials told the National Security Council (NSC) to remove the "16 words" or that there were concerns about the credibility of the Iraq-Niger uranium reporting.
2007-12-30 20:40:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by madd texan 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If only Bush could "assume" half as much as you do, we'd all be saved!
It's interesting that you claim to be aware of what goes on behind closed doors between the President and the CIA. Odd.
2007-12-28 14:46:06
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
3⤋
Yeah, right. So where did Bush get his "knowledge" since it didn't come from US intelligence agencies (and was wrong besides, as the CIA tried to tell him?
Maybe it waas in one if his messages from the Almighty, hmmmm?
2007-12-28 14:40:46
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
It wasn't true but we needed some strong propaganda or congress would not have gone along.
2007-12-28 14:40:14
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
And the record skips again.
BDS Guy seems more fitting
2007-12-28 14:38:53
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
6⤋