A week after U.S. President George W. Bush alleged in his January State of the Union address that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa, U.S. officials told the International Atomic Energy Agency that they could not confirm such reports, the U.S. State Department said in a letter sent yesterday to a congressional committee (see GSN, July 8).

The letter, provided to Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee, came in response to a statement provided to Waxman by the IAEA, according to the New York Times.  In the statement, the IAEA said it had attempted to obtain information from the United States in December 2002 to support U.S. allegations that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger.  The Bush administration did not provide such information, however, until Feb. 4, a week after his State of the Union address. 

The IAEA was able to quickly determine that the documents purporting to illustrate the attempted Iraq-Niger uranium purchase, provided by the United States, were forgeries.  When State provided the documents to the IAEA, however, it said, “We cannot confirm these reports and have questions regarding some specific claims,” according to the letter the department provided Waxman.

On Monday, the White House acknowledged that Bush should not have included in his address the claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa.  Democrats in Congress have said that the admission justifies a new full-scale investigation into the administration’s handling of prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq, the Times reported.

“It’s a recognition that we were provided faulty information,” said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.).  “And I think it’s all the more reason why a full investigation of all of the facts surrounding this situation be undertaken, the sooner the better,” he said.

Republicans have defended Bush, saying the White House was “forthright” in acknowledging that the claims should not have been made.

“It has since turned out to be, at least according to the reports that have been just released, not true,” said Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).  “The president stepped forward and said so.  I think that’s all you can expect,” he said (Sanger/Hulse, New York Times, July 9).

Bush himself today defended his decision to go to war with Iraq based on a larger body of U.S. intelligence.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that when it’s all said and done the facts will show the world the truth,” Bush said during a press conference in Pretoria, South Africa.  “There’s going to be, you know, a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history, and I can understand that.  But I’m absolutely confident in the decision I made,” he said (Associated Press/New York Times, July 9).

British Intelligence Review

Meanwhile, a adviser to former British Prime Minister John Major has said that a judicial inquiry should be conducted to address the growing doubts over the British government’s decision to go to war with Iraq, according to Agence France-Presse.  If it can be shown within eight months that the government’s decision to go to war was based on nonexistent threats, it would “leave the government looking very tattered,” said Rodric Braithwaite, a former foreign affairs adviser to Major (Agence France-Presse/Bangkok Post, July 9).

NATO Involvement in Postwar Iraq?

The Bush administration is becoming interested in placing NATO in charge of the military occupation of Iraq as a way to reduce U.S. troop levels there, U.S. and alliance officials said.

The transfer of occupation duties to NATO could be discussed as early as this fall, officials said.  Some within the Bush administration could oppose such a move because it would mean that the United States would have to share decision-making responsibilities with European leaders, analysts said.  In its position as the most powerful nation in the alliance, however, the United States would retain military command while being able to distribute the costs and burdens of the occupation among a number of other countries, diplomats said.

“There is interest” in transferring the mission to NATO, although not immediately, a senior Bush administration official said yesterday.  “I think the American public would be pleased to see NATO helping us in Iraq. ... Americans believe in NATO and would consider it a plus to have NATO secure Iraq,” the official said.

Some analysts have said, however, that the alliance would not be able to adequately handle the mission.

“NATO is not staffed, equipped or organized for the mission,” said Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

In addition, France and Germany, which opposed the war in Iraq, would probably set high conditions on agreeing to allow NATO to assume control of the occupation, according to the Baltimore Sun.

“You would need a whole package” giving allies a major role in decisions on Iraq’s reconstruction and its future government, said Robert Hunter, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO.  “It can’t be just that the U.S. is still in charge of everything,” he said (Matthews/Bowman, Baltimore Sun, July 9).

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP

Back to top