A former U.S. ambassador to Gabon who was involved in an attempt to verify whether Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Niger prior to the war said in a New York Times opinion piece yesterday that the Bush administration “twisted” some intelligence related to Iraq’s nuclear weapons program (see GSN, July 3).

“Based on my experience with the administration in the months leading up to the war, I have little choice but to conclude that some of the intelligence related to Iraq's nuclear weapons program was twisted to exaggerate the Iraqi threat,” Joseph Wilson wrote.

Wilson detailed his trip to Niger last year to verify reports Iraq had purchased uranium from the country in the late 1990s (see GSN, June 13).  Wilson said he met with the U.S. ambassador to Niger, Barbro Owens-Kirkpatrick, in late February 2002 in the capital of Niamey, who told him that she knew about the alleged uranium sale and that she felt she had dispelled the claim in reports back to Washington.  Wilson then spent more than a week meeting with current and former Nigerien officials and individuals involved in the country’s uranium industry.

“It did not take long to conclude that it was highly doubtful that any such transaction had ever taken place,” Wilson said.

According to Wilson, the structure of Niger’s uranium industry would have made it difficult for Iraq to purchase uranium there.  Niger’s uranium industry consists of two mines, which are operated by an international consortium and monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency, Wilson said.  In addition, because the mines are closely regulated, any uranium sale would have required the approval of the minister of mines, the prime minister and possibly the president, he said.

“In short, there’s simply too much oversight over too small an industry for a sale to have transpired,” Wilson said.

Wilson said that before he left Niger he briefed Owens-Kirkpatrick on his findings.  He also said that when he returned to the United States in early March 2002, he “promptly” briefed the CIA, and later, the U.S State Department African Affairs Bureau.  According to Wilson, there should be at least four archived documents on his mission to Niger, including Owens-Kirkpatrick’s report on his briefing in Niamey, a CIA summary of his trip and a reply from the CIA to the office of the vice president, which originally had questions about the alleged sale.  The CIA’s answer to the office of the vice president may have been delivered orally, Wilson said.

“If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why),” Wilson said.  “If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses,” he added (Joseph Wilson, New York Times, July 6).

Iraq May Have Destroyed Weapons of Mass Destruction in 1990s

A U.S. intelligence expert has said that former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein might have destroyed Iraq’s WMD stockpiles during the 1990s as part of efforts to get U.N. sanctions against the country lifted, according to the London Independent.

“It is almost certain that Saddam ordered the weapons dismantled or destroyed some time in the 1990s,” said Richard Shultz of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University.  “Sanctions had seriously impeded the Iraqi efforts to obtain materials and equipment for their WMD programs,” Shultz said.

The WMD destruction was part of a strategy to get U.N. sanctions lifted, a strategy that was disrupted by the Sept. 11 attacks in the United States, according to Shultz.

“The Iraqi strategy was to get sanctions lifted and they mounted a deception ... But then (Osama) bin Laden got in the way,” Shultz said.  “After Sept. 11 the Bush administration turned its attention firmly to Iraq,” he added (Paul Lashmar, London Independent, July 6).

British Intelligence Review

Meanwhile, the British Parliament House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee said today that the British government gave undue importance to a claim made in a September dossier that the Iraqi military could deploy biological or chemical weapons within 45 minutes of receiving an order to do so, according to the Associated Press.

The committee said that the language used in the dossier was “more assertive than that traditionally used in intelligence documents” and that the “jury is still out” on the accuracy of the information included in the report.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, defended the September dossier.

“We stand by the September dossier,” the spokesman said.

The committee also found that Blair’s communications director, Alastair Campbell, “did not exert or seek to exert improper influence” when he included the 45-minute claim in the September dossier.  The BBC had previously reported allegations that aides to Blair redrafted the dossier to include the claim and increase the case for war (Michael McDonough, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 7).

Blair is scheduled to appear before a separate committee tomorrow to be questioned about the government’s reports on Iraq  (Katherine Baldwin, Reuters, July 7).

Campbell said today that the BBC report that claimed Blair’s aides had exaggerated the information in the September dossier was a “fundamental attack” on Blair’s integrity.

“That is a fundamental attack on the integrity of the government and the prime minister,” Campbell said.  “The BBC has not provided a shred of evidence to substantiate the story,” he said (Michael McDonough, Associated Press, July 7).

The BBC board of governors said yesterday that it stands by the decision to run the story, which was based on a single intelligence source, according to Agence France-Presse.

“The board is satisfied that it was in the public interest to broadcast (Andrew) Gilligan’s story, given the information which was available to BBC News at the time,” the board said in a statement.

The board also said that it had never accused Blair of going to war with Iraq under false pretenses.

“The board wishes to place on record that the BBC has never accused the prime minister of lying, or of seeking to take Britain into war under misleading or false pretences,” the board said.  “The BBC did not have an agenda in its war coverage, nor does it now have any agenda which questions the integrity of the prime minister,” it added (Agence France-Presse/Yahoo!News, July 6).

Australia

Prior to participating in the U.S.-led war on Iraq, Australia knew that some U.S. agencies had doubts about claims that Iraq was attempting to rebuild its nuclear weapons program, Australian Prime Minister John Howard said today.

The Sydney Morning Herald reported today that Australia had been informed that the U.S. Energy and State departments had questioned the accuracy of the CIA intelligence that said Iraq had relaunched its nuclear weapons program.  The newspaper reported that former State intelligence official Greg Thielmann had said that the CIA claims were based on evidence that Iraq had purchased aluminum tubes intended for us in gas centrifuges.  He also said that State had not accepted that analysis and that Australia would have received such information.

In a speech to the Australian Parliament in February, Howard quoted a CIA analysis that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program.  Howard earlier today defended Australia’s participation in the war on Iraq, saying that he provided the Parliament with “accurate” information.

Later today, however, Howard issued a statement that said Australian intelligence agencies knew about the doubts surrounding the issue of the aluminum tubes, according to the Associated Press.

“Australian agencies were aware of the debate in the United States about the purpose of the aluminum tubes,” Howard said.  “I made no reference to aluminum tubes in my statement to Parliament of Feb. 4 or subsequently,” he said (Peter O’Connor, Associated Press, July 7).

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top