Iraq I:  Tenet Likely to Survive Intelligence Controversy, Experts Say

By Mike Nartker
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — CIA Director George Tenet will probably keep his job despite recent calls by some in Congress for his resignation, intelligence experts told Global Security Newswire this week.  In a statement last week Tenet publicly took responsibility for allowing U.S. President George W. Bush to make the now-discredited claim that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Africa (see GSN, July 16).

Intelligence experts said Tenet’s record as a “team player” within the Bush administration is likely to play a major role in helping him remain as CIA director.  In addition, the White House could end up creating more problems for itself politically if it forced Tenet to resign, or if he were to do so on his own, they said.  Some experts said, however, that the Bush administration might call on Tenet to resign or dismiss him if the controversy over the administration’s handling of prewar U.S. intelligence on Iraq begins to have a major political impact on Bush himself.

Tenet’s Troubles

Tenet’s current difficulties can be traced back to late 2001, when Italy obtained documents that indicated Iraq had tried to purchase processed uranium, known as “yellowcake,” from Niger, according to Time.  When the United States received the information, it came to the attention of the vice president’s office, which dispatched Joseph Wilson, a former U.S. ambassador to Gabon, to Niger in February 2002 to investigate the claim (see GSN, July 7).

In a commentary published July 6 in the New York Times, Wilson described his trip to Niger, which included meetings with current and former Nigerien officials and people associated with 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.

Wilson said that when he returned to the United States in early March 2002, he “promptly” provided a detailed briefing on his findings to the CIA.  While the CIA cabled the White House with information that Nigerien officials had denied that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium, the information was attributed to an anonymous source, not Wilson, the Washington Post reported last month.

The African uranium claim came up again in September 2002 when it was included in a British dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Sept. 24, 2002).  While not specifically naming Niger, the dossier said, “there is intelligence that Iraq has sought the supply of significant quantities of uranium in Africa” (see related GSN story, today).

Iraq’s purported attempts to purchase uranium from Africa, including Niger, were also included in a U.S. national intelligence estimate prepared in October 2002, according to Tenet’s recent statement.  While the claim was not offered as evidence that Iraq was seeking to relaunch its nuclear weapons program, the NIE included three paragraphs describing reports that Iraq had attempted to procure uranium from Niger and two other African countries, Tenet said in his statement.  He also quoted the NIE as saying: “We cannot confirm whether Iraq succeeded in acquiring uranium ore and/or yellowcake from these sources.”

The White House, however, wanted to use the NIE’s Niger reference in a speech Bush was slated to give Oct. 7 in Cincinnati, Ohio, the Washington Post reported.  Tenet personally told White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the claim should not be included in that speech because it came from only one source, a senior official told the Post.  The reference was ultimately excluded from Bush’s Cincinnati speech (see GSN, Oct. 8, 2002).

In early December 2002, Iraq submitted a declaration of WMD-related information to U.N. weapons inspectors, as required by the U.N. Security Council (see GSN, Dec. 9, 2002).  On Dec. 19, the U.S. State Department issued a fact sheet listing a number of alleged omissions from the Iraqi declaration, which specifically raised the Niger claim.

“The declaration ignores efforts to procure uranium from Niger,” the State Department fact sheet says.  “Why is the Iraqi regime hiding their uranium procurement?” it says [emphasis included in original copy].

Soon after State released the fact sheet, the International Atomic Energy Agency requested that the United States provide evidence to support the claim that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger, according to a letter the agency sent last month to Representative Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Government Reform Committee.

Meanwhile, in January the African uranium claim received its most significant endorsement when Bush included it in his State of the Union address in the now-infamous “16 words.”

“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa,” Bush said in his address.

While apparently being significant enough for Bush to include it in his State of the Union address, the African uranium claim was not included in U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February presentation to the U.N. Security Council on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction (see GSN, Feb. 6).

“When I made my presentation to the United Nations and we really went through every single thing we knew about all of the various issues with respect to weapons of mass destruction, we did not believe that it was appropriate to use that example anymore,” Powell said last week during a press conference in Pretoria, South Africa.  “It was not standing the test of time.  And so I didn’t use it, and we haven’t used it since.”

Also in February, the United States responded to the IAEA’s request for evidence to support the claim that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger.  According to the agency’s letter to Waxman, it only took about 10 days to determine that an alleged contract between Iraq and Niger for the delivery of uranium could not have been honored.  The agency then examined the veracity of the documents, finding a number of flaws, such as incorrect references to the date of the Nigerien constitution, the incorrect name of the Nigerien foreign minister at the time the alleged documents were signed and the use of obsolete letterhead and the incorrect symbol of the Nigerien presidency.

According to a State Department letter sent to Waxman earlier this month, the department told the IAEA when it provided the alleged Nigerien documents that the reports of Iraq’s attempts to purchase uranium there could not be confirmed and that the department had questions regarding specific claims (see GSN, July 9).

The first major blow was dealt to the African uranium claim in March when IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei publicly announced that the documents purporting to show Iraq’s attempt to purchase uranium from Niger were forgeries (see GSN, March 10).

“Based on thorough analysis, the IAEA has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents are in fact not authentic,” ElBaradei told the Security Council March 7, according to a U.N. press release.

Newsweek reported yesterday that the FBI is conducting an investigation into the forged Nigerien documents (see GSN, March 13).  Sources told the magazine that the bureau’s Counterintelligence Division has decided to investigate the issue after prompting by Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), whose earlier request three months ago was denied.

The African uranium claim came crashing down earlier this month when the White House publicly acknowledged that it should not have been included in Bush’s State of the Union address (see GSN, July 8).

“After the speech, information was learned about the forged documents,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said during a July 9 press conference in Pretoria, referring to the Nigerien documents.  “With the advantage of hindsight, it’s known now what was not known by the White House prior to the speech.  This information should not have risen to the level of a presidential speech,” he said.

Two days later, Tenet issued his statement taking responsibility for the CIA’s approval of Bush’s address (see GSN, July 14).

“First, CIA approved the president’s State of the Union address before it was delivered.  Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my agency.  And third, the president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound,” Tenet said.  “These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president,” he said.

Tenet told the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence yesterday that his staff did not bring the uranium statement to his attention before Bush gave the speech, the Washington Post reported.  Tenet told the committee during a closed hearing that he had taken responsibility for the speech because a CIA official had approved it after meetings with the White House, congressional and Bush administration sources told the Post.

“Members were stunned because he said he basically wasn’t aware of the sentence until recently,” the Post quoted a Democratic senator as saying.

Senator Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) said today that Tenet also told the Senate intelligence committee that a White House official had insisted that the African uranium claim be included in the State of the Union address.

“He (Tenet) certainly told us who the person was who was insistent on putting this language in which the CIA knew to be incredible, this language about the uranium shipment from Africa,” the Associated Press quoted Durbin as saying on ABC’s Good Morning America. 

“And there was this negotiation between the White House and the CIA about just how far you could go and be close to the truth, and unfortunately those 16 words were included in the most important speech the president delivers in any given year,” Durbin said.

Tenet’s Future

Soon after Tenet released his statement, Bush and other senior White House officials expressed support for both him and the CIA.

“President Bush has confidence in Director Tenet, and President Bush has confidence in the CIA,” White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Saturday.

“George Tenet is an enormously talented public servant, and the intelligence community does a darn good job,” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Sunday on ABC’S This Week.  “There it is, end of story,” he said.

Yesterday though, two contenders for the 2004 Democratic presidential nomination — Senator Joseph Lieberman (Conn.) and former Vermont Governor Howard Dean — publicly called for Tenet to resign.

“The reason the director should step aside is that he is now part of the shifting of the blame,” Dean told the Associated Press.

Lieberman was even stronger in his criticism of Tenet, saying he would have little confidence in Tenet if Lieberman were president.

“Unlike the current president, I would not continue to have confidence in my CIA director, and would ask him to resign,” Lieberman told AP.  “This president ought to hold someone accountable for causing him to say something that was not true,” he added.

Tenet’s reputation as one of the better CIA directors in recent history and as a “team player” within the Bush administration could go a long way, however, in helping him to keep his job, according to experts. 

If Tenet were to be removed from his CIA position after taking personal responsibility for the statement, some career CIA officials would likely retaliate with even more embarrassing revelations if they felt the White House had treated him “dirty,” said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org.

“Tenet’s been a stand-up guy.  He’s kept the secrets and carried the water,” Pike said.

The White House also risks portraying Tenet as a “scapegoat” if it engineers his resignation, which could cause political difficulties, said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy.

While Tenet was appointed to his position by former President Bill Clinton, and therefore not seen as a Bush loyalist, he does have a strong team player reputation, said Charles Pena, director of Defense Policy Studies at the CATO Institute.  Even so, the impact of the intelligence-handling controversy on Bush’s personal approval rating could determine Tenet’s status, with his position in danger if the rating dips below 60 percent, Pena said.

If there were “any one guy to hang out to dry on this one,” it would be Tenet, Pena said.

Pike said, however, that previous administrations — such as those of former Presidents John Kennedy and Richard Nixon — had experienced difficulties in blaming controversies on the CIA.

“Nixon tried to blame Watergate on the CIA.  Look where it got him,” Pike said.  “Kennedy tried to blame Bay of Pigs on the CIA.  Look where it got him,” he said.

In fact, the lessons of Watergate may not be lost on some senior Bush administration officials, such as Vice President Dick Cheney and Rumsfeld, who served in the Ford administration during the aftermath of that scandal, Pike said.

“They got some adults over there who’ll take a hand to this and make it go away,” Pike said.  “They all saw Nixon self-destruct and don’t want to go there,” he said.

Back to top

Iraq II:  U.S., British Intelligence Agencies Did Not Share Africa Uranium Information, Officials Say

U.S. and British intelligence agencies did not fully share information with each other on claims that Iraq attempted to obtain uranium from Africa, resulting in differing conclusions, British officials said yesterday (see related GSN story, today).

British officials said the CIA had attempted last year to persuade the British government to drop the African uranium claim from a September report on Iraq’s WMD programs.  In a letter to a parliamentary committee conducting an inquiry into the United Kingdom’s decision to go to war with Iraq, British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the CIA request was denied because of “reliable intelligence which we had not shared with the U.S.” and because the CIA had made the request “unsupported by explanation.”

While British officials will not provide further detail about the additional evidence they say supports the Africa uranium claim, they have said they have multiple sources, including at least one foreign intelligence agency, that said its information could not be shared with other countries, according to the Washington Post.

Straw also said the CIA did not inform British officials about a visit to Niger by Joseph Wilson, a former U.S ambassador to Gabon, who found there was no evidence to support a claim that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium there.

“I want to make clear that neither I nor, to the best of my knowledge, any U.K. officials were aware of Ambassador Wilson’s visit until reference first appeared in the press” last month, Straw said in his letter.  “In response to our questions, the U.S. authorities have confirmed that Ambassador Wilson’s report was not shared with the U.K.,” he said.

British officials have said they have now seen a summary of Wilson’s report on his visit to Niger, adding that they view it as inconclusive.

“We can see why it wasn’t passed on to us because it doesn’t point in one direction,” an official said, adding that the summary confirmed that an Iraqi trade delegation had visited Niger in 1999, but no trade agreements were reached.  “Uranium is Niger’s top export; it’s unlikely the Iraqis were looking for livestock, which is their second export,” the official said (Glenn Frankel, Washington Post, July 17).

Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency has criticized the United Kingdom for failing to hand over its additional evidence supporting claims that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa.

“Despite requests, the British government has provided no such evidence,” said a Western diplomat close to the IAEA.  “Senior officials at the agency think it is involved in an information blackout,” the diplomat said (Andrew Buncombe, London Independent, July 17).

British Prime Minister Tony Blair yesterday defended the claim that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Niger, saying the British intelligence justifying the claim was not based on documents later found to be forgeries by the IAEA.

“It may just be worth pointing out to the House and also to the public, it’s not as if this link between Niger and Iraq was some invention of the CIA or Britain.  We know (that) in the 1980s that Iraq purchased from Niger over 270 tons of uranium, and therefore it is not beyond the bounds of possibility,” Blair said before the House of Commons.  “Let’s at least put it like this, that they went back to Niger again,” he said (Xinhua News Agency, July 17).

Blair is scheduled to arrive in the United States today to meet with U.S. President George W. Bush and make a rare address before a joint session of Congress.

While Blair is not expected to discuss the intelligence-handling controversy in his address to Congress, it is expected to have an effect on his meeting with Bush, the Boston Globe reported.

The issue “is going to overshadow this meeting, and it’s going to be a much tenser meeting than previous summits,” said Nile Gardiner, a foreign policy adviser to former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.  “This is going to be a much more combative meeting than previous ones between Blair and Bush,” Gardiner said (Anne Kornblut, Boston Globe, July 17).

Back to top

Iraq III:  Niger Documents Were Poorly Forged, Newspaper Reports

The now-discredited documents used by the United Kingdom and the United States to prove that Iraq was seeking uranium from Niger had mistakes that were easily detectable, Italian newspaper La Repubblica reported yesterday after gaining access to the letters and documents.

According to the newspaper, for instance, a letter dated Oct. 10, 2000, which was supposed to be the draft of the protocol of the agreement between Niger and Iraq, was signed by Nigerien Foreign Minister Allele Habibou, who had left the position in 1989.

In addition, a letter referring to supposed agreements made between Niger and Iraq on June 29, 2000, was signed and dated July 1999.  The text of a letter dated July 27, 2000, had many spelling mistakes and the logo of Niger’s national symbol was obviously fake, according to the newspaper.

There are two theories on who forged the letters and documents, according to La Repubblica:  low-level diplomats from the embassy of Niger in Rome, which is the theory that CIA supports, or Italian intelligence services that sold the letters to an African diplomat in 2001.  The diplomat then passed the letters to British authorities.

The newspaper also reported on the possible link between the forged documents and a robbery that occurred in Niger’s embassy in Rome on a night between Dec. 29, 2000, and Jan. 1, 2001.  According to the newspaper, the embassy was found on Jan. 2 to have been vandalized, with paper strewn about and drawers turned upside down.  Despite creating the mess, the intruders stole only a steel clock and three small perfume bottles.

The theory, according to La Repubblica, is that the break-in was staged to cover the removal of material needed to forge the documents (Bonini/D’avanzo, La Repubblica, July 16, GSN translation).

Back to top

Syria:  Bolton Congressional Appearance Canceled Due to Dispute Over WMD Assessment

U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton’s planned appearance yesterday before a House International Relations subcommittee to testify on Syria’s WMD programs was delayed until September because of objections from U.S. intelligence agencies over his assessment, according to Knight-Ridder (see GSN, June 5).

Bolton was prepared to tell the Middle East and Central Asia Subcommittee that Syria’s WMD programs had developed to the point where they posed a threat to the region, U.S. officials said.  The CIA and other intelligence agencies, however, objected to this assessment, saying it was exaggerated, according to Knight-Ridder.

Bolton’s planned testimony caused a “revolt” among intelligence experts who thought it inflated Syria’s WMD progress, a U.S. official said.  The CIA’s objections alone to Bolton’s prepared remarks ran to up to 40 pages, the official said.

A Bolton aide said the undersecretary’s appearance was delayed because he was called to a White House meeting yesterday afternoon.  Other White House and congressional officials said, however, that the White House Office of Management and Budget, which coordinates officials’ public statements, would not give final approval to Bolton’s prepared testimony.

Another possible reason that Bolton’s congressional appearance was canceled was because of the questioning the White House has recently faced over possible exaggerations of Iraq-related intelligence, several officials said.  There is now more attention paid to “dotting i’s and crossing t’s,” a U.S. State Department official said.  The official added that Bolton’s prepared testimony was subjected to “extensive edits” (Strobel/Landay, Knight Ridder, Miami Herald, July 16).

Back to top

Iraq I:  At Least 10 Kilos of Uranium Compounds Missing, IAEA Says

At least 10 kilograms of uranium compounds are missing from an Iraqi nuclear material storage facility near the Tuwaitha complex south of Baghdad, which was the main site in Iraq’s former nuclear program, the International Atomic Energy Agency said in a report released yesterday (see GSN, June 23).

An IAEA inspection team, working under the auspices of the agency’s safeguards agreement with Iraq, found last month that at least 10 kilograms of uranium compounds “could have dispersed” from the Location C Nuclear Material Storage Facility, according to the report.  It also says, however, that the missing materials pose little threat of being used to develop nuclear weapons.

“The quantity and type of uranium compounds dispersed are not sensitive from a proliferation point of view,” the report says.

The IAEA plans to request coalition authorities to “make every effort” to find the missing materials and return them to the Location C site and place them under IAEA safeguards, the report says.  It also calls on the United States and the United Kingdom “to ensure the physical protection and security of the entire nuclear material inventory in Iraq” (International Atomic Energy Agency release, July 14).

Back to top

Iraq II:  Prior to January Bush Speech, Most Evidence of Iraqi Nuclear Ambition Was in Tatters

By the time U.S. President George W. Bush’s delivered his January State of the Union address, the now-discredited evidence that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Africa was the only intelligence supporting the allegation that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear weapons program, the Washington Post reported today (see GSN, July 15).

Bush administration officials have recently said that the African uranium claim was just one of many pieces of intelligence that indicated Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons.  However, following Bush’s Oct. 7 speech outlining the case against Iraq, most of the other pieces of intelligence suggesting Iraq was trying to develop nuclear weapons had been discredited by U.N. weapons inspectors, according to the Post.

In that speech, Bush said satellite imagery indicated that Iraq was rebuilding its nuclear sites.  Bush also cited as further evidence of Baghdad’s nuclear intentions “numerous meetings’ between former President Saddam Hussein and Iraqi nuclear scientists, as well as Iraq’s attempts to obtain aluminum tubes that could be used to develop uranium enrichment centrifuges.

The day before Bush’s Jan. 28 State of the Union address, however, International Atomic Energy Agency Director General Mohamed ElBaradei told the U.N. Security Council that two months of U.N. inspections within Iraq had turned up no prohibited activities occurring at former nuclear sites (see GSN, Jan. 27).  ElBaradei also said that inspectors had “useful” interviews with some Iraqi nuclear scientists and that the aluminum tubes Iraq was seeking could not have been used to build centrifuges without modifications (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, July 16).

Congressional Action

Meanwhile, CIA Director George Tenet is expected to testify on the African uranium claim today before a closed session of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, according to the New York Times.

Among the questions Tenet is expected to field is why he sought personally to have a reference to Iraq’s efforts to obtain uranium from Niger removed from Bush’s October speech, according to the Times.  The reference had been included in a national intelligence estimate distributed Oct. 1, but four days later Tenet called a Bush aide to have it removed from the speech, according to White House and intelligence officials.

Tenet’s move to remove the reference has led to questions by some in the White House who want to know why the Niger claim was included in the national intelligence estimate, the Times reported.

“This report was supposed to be the gold standard of our intelligence about Iraq,” a senior Bush administration official said.

CIA officials defended the intelligence, saying such reports sometimes include information that does not rise to the level of certainty required of a presidential speech.  The report also contained a footnote saying the U.S. State Department had doubts about the African uranium claim, the Times reported.

“It’s one thing to have information in a classified document with caveats and footnotes, and another to have the president flatly assert something,” an intelligence official said (Risen/Sanger, New York Times, July 16).

The House Select Committee on Intelligence is scheduled to hold a public hearing next week on claims that the Bush administration misrepresented U.S. intelligence on Iraq prior to the war, according to the Financial Times.

“Big questions remain about who forged the documents and the paper trail that followed,” said Representative Jane Harman (D-Calif.), referring to the documents used by the Bush administration to support the African uranium claim.  The IAEA revealed in March that those documents, purporting to show an attempted Iraqi purchase of uranium from Niger, were forgeries.

After returning this week from a visit to Iraq, senior members of the House Intelligence Committee said it is unlikely that the United States would soon find evidence of large-scale Iraqi WMD stockpiles.

“Thus far, the evidence emerging on Iraq’s WMD programs does not point to the existence of large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons,” the committee said in a statement (Edward Alden, Financial Times, July 16).

Meanwhile, Niger is angry over suggestions that it was involved in an attempted sale of uranium to Iraq, according to the Straits Times.

There have been calls within Niger for Bush to make a public apology for mentioning the African uranium claim in his State of the Union address.  The BBC has reported that some in Niger have also called for the issue to be taken before the International Court of Justice (Straits Times, July 16).

France denied Monday a Financial Times report that said Paris was a probable source of the uranium information, according to Agence France-Presse. 

“Contrary to the insinuations which appeared in the British press, France is not behind the intelligence published in the British dossier dated Sept. 24, 2002, and relative to the nuclear program of Iraq,” the French Foreign Ministry said in a statement.

The Times report also said that Italy was a likely source for the information (Agence France-Presse, July 14, in FBIS-WEU, July 14).  Italian judicial officials yesterday began an investigation into whether Italy’s intelligence service was the source for the information, judicial sources said, adding that there is no evidence so far of any wrongdoing (Washington Times, July 16).

Back to top

Kyrgyz Response:  Kyrgyzstan to Implement Export-Control Laws

Kyrgyzstan is set to establish new export-control regulations to prevent the spread of WMD-related materials, a senior Kyrgyz trade official said yesterday (see GSN, April 18).

Under the new regulations, materials such as uranium, cyanide and rare-earth metals will now require prior approval before they can be exported or imported, Deputy External Trade and Industry Minister Nina Kirichenko said.  “These measures will allow us to strictly control movement of such dangerous materials,” Kirichenko said (Agence France-Presse, July 16).

Back to top

Iraq:  Bush Defends Speech, Rationale for War

U.S. President George W. Bush yesterday defended his January State of the Union address, which contained the claim that Iraq had sought uranium from Africa, saying that the speech was “backed by good intelligence” (see GSN, July 14).

“I think the intelligence I get is darn good intelligence.  And the speeches I have given were backed by good intelligence,” Bush said yesterday during a joint press conference with U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan following a White House meeting.  “And I am absolutely convinced today, like I was convinced when I gave the speeches, that [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein developed a program of weapons of mass destruction, and that our country made the right decision,” he said.

Bush said his address was cleared by the CIA and that the agency had doubts “subsequent to the speech.”

“The thing that’s important to realize is that’s important to realize is that we’re constantly gathering data.  Subsequent to the speech, the CIA had some doubts,” Bush said.  “But when … they talked about the speech, when they looked at the speech, it was cleared,” he said.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan today sought to clarify Bush’s remark, saying that the president had first learned of doubts in March, after the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that documents purporting to show that Iraq had purchased uranium from Niger were forgeries (Mike Nartker, GSN, July 15).

Bush aides have said, however, that the CIA raised doubts that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger, a basis for the Africa uranium claim, more than four months before the State of the Union, according to the Washington Post.

U.S. Marine Gen. Carlton Fulford told the Post yesterday that he had been sent to Niger last year to investigate the security of that country’s uranium stockpiles, and that after the visit he believed they were secure.  Fulford’s findings were passed on to Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, though it is unknown if they reached the White House, according to the Post. 

Capt. Frank Thorp, a spokesman for Myers, said the general has “no recollection of the information,” but did not doubt that he had received it.  “Given the time frame of 16 months ago, information concerning Iraq not obtaining uranium from Niger would not have been as pressing as other subjects,” Thorp said (Priest/Milbank, Washington Post, July 15).

Some Republicans have called on the Bush administration to step up its efforts to respond to questions over the case for war on Iraq, according to the New York Times.

“They have the potential to hurt, unless they are firmly and forcefully and frequently answered,” Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) said.  “I don’t think you can let any of this go unanswered.  And I don’t think the president is going to take any of this lying down,” he said.

In his remarks yesterday, Bush defended the decision to go to war with Baghdad, saying that such a decision was necessary because Hussein refused to allow U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq.

“The larger point is, and the fundamental question is:  Did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program?  And the answer is: Absolutely.  And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them in,” Bush said.  “And therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region,” he said.

During a White House press briefing today, McClellan sought to clarify Bush’s comment.  What Bush meant by his comment was that Hussein had failed to fully comply with U.N. resolution 1441, which established the inspection regime, and that Hussein had worked to “thwart inspectors … every step of the way,” McClellan said (Nartker, GSN).

British Africa Uranium Claim Disputed

Meanwhile, a Western diplomat with ties to the IAEA has said that all British intelligence purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Africa was based on a set of documents that have been revealed to be forgeries, according to Agence France-Presse.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw defended the Africa uranium claim, which was included in a September 2002 report, saying the information had come from “foreign intelligence services.”

The evidence that the United Kingdom has of Iraq’s efforts to obtain uranium from Africa, however, refers to the same alleged transaction that was described in the forged documents, the diplomat said. 

“I understand that it concerned the same group of documents and the same transaction,” the diplomat was quoted by the Daily Mail as saying (Agence France-Presse).

Discovered Nuclear Components Ineffective, U.N. Inspector Says

U.N. weapons inspector Jacques Baute said it would have been “virtually impossible” for Iraq to relaunch its nuclear weapons program with equipment and materials that were recently recovered from a Baghdad backyard, according to the Associated Press (see GSN, June 26).

The recovered uranium enrichment equipment, provided by an Iraqi scientist last month, lacked necessary components, Baute said.  In addition, blueprints also provided by the scientist contained a number of mistakes, he said.

U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher, while refusing to comment on Baute’s assessment, said the recovered equipment and documents indicated that Iraq had not abandoned its desire for nuclear weapons (see GSN, June 27).

“I think the findings in Iraq demonstrate that Iraq had not abandoned its intentions on nuclear programs.  Just buried them.  Maybe more,” Boucher said.  “We’ll see.  We’ll find the full extent of that as time goes on,” he said (Charles Hanley, Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 15).  

Back to top

Iraq:  Tenet Takes Responsibility for State of the Union Address

CIA Director George Tenet took responsibility Friday for U.S. President George W. Bush’s January State of the Union address, which contained the now-discredited claim that Iraq had sought to obtain uranium from Africa (see GSN, July 11).

“First, CIA approved the president’s State of the Union address before it was delivered.  Second, I am responsible for the approval process in my agency.  And third, the president had every reason to believe that the text presented to him was sound,” Tenet said in a press statement.  “These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president,” he said (CIA release, July 11).

White House press secretary Ari Fleischer said Saturday that the decision for Tenet to release his statement was a mutual one between the CIA director and the White House.

“Discussions with Director Tenet about the statement have been going on for days,” Fleischer said.  “The discussion was, the CIA needs to explain what its role was in this,” he said.

Bush said Saturday that he “absolutely” had faith in both Tenet and the CIA itself.

“I’ve got confidence in George Tenet and in the men and women who work at the CIA,” Bush said during a press conference in Abuja, Nigeria. 

Tenet’s statement should close the issue of the Africa claim, according to Fleischer.

“The president is pleased that the director of central intelligence acknowledged what needed to be acknowledged,” Fleischer said.  “The president has moved on.  And I think, frankly, much of the country has moved on as well,” he said (Richard Stevenson, New York Times, July 13).

The Washington Post reported yesterday that Tenet was able to persuade White House officials to remove a claim that Iraq was attempting to purchase uranium from Niger from a Bush speech in October.

The White House wanted to include in the speech an allegation that Iraq had attempted to purchase 500 tons of uranium oxide, an assertion that was contained in a national intelligence estimate in late September 2002, according to the Post.  Tenet personally told White House officials, including deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley, that the allegation should not be used because it only came from one source, according to a senior official.  The CIA also doubted the accuracy of the documents that served as the basis of the allegation, which were later revealed to have been forgeries, a second senior official said.

The late September national intelligence estimate was the basis for Bush’s claim in his State of the Union address that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Africa, the Post reported.

A former White House official said that there had been information “available within the system” that should have been able to keep the Africa claim out of the State of the Union address.

“The information was available within the system that should have caught this kind of big mistake,” the former Bush administration official said.  “The question is how the management of the system, and the process that supported it, allowed this kind of misinformation to be used and embarrass the president,” the former official said (Pincus/Allen, Washington Post, July 13).

In his statement Friday, Tenet defended the text of Bush’s State of the Union address as being “factually correct.”

“From what we know now, agency officials in the end concurred that the text in the speech was factually correct — i.e. that the British government report said that Iraq sought uranium from Africa,” Tenet said.  “This should not have been the test for clearing a presidential address.  This did not rise to the level of certainty which should be required for presidential speeches, and CIA should have ensured that it was removed,” he added (CIA release).

Yesterday, two senior Bush administration officials also defended the text of the State of the Union address as being factually correct.

“The statement that he [Bush] made was indeed accurate,” U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice said on Fox News Sunday.  “The British government did say that,” she said.

Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld also said that Bush’s address was correct, adding that London has continued to stand by its assertion.

“It turns out that it’s technically correct what the president said, that the U.K. does — did say that — and still says that,” Rumsfeld said.  “They haven’t changed their mind, the United Kingdom intelligence people,” he said (James Risen, New York Times, July 14).

Rumsfeld also said yesterday that Vice President Dick Cheney misspoke when he said on Meet the Press that Iraq had reconstituted nuclear weapons, saying that the vice president had meant to say Iraq had rebuilt its nuclear weapons program.

“In no instance did anyone in the administration that I know of suggested that they had a nuclear weapon,” Rumsfeld said.  “We did believe, and do believe, that they had reconstituted their program, and at some point would have … a nuclear weapon — if left alone,” he said (U.S. Defense Department release, July 13).

British Intelligence Report

Meanwhile, France and Italy are believed to have provided the United Kingdom with information that was used to support the British claim that Iraq had attempted to obtain uranium from Africa, according to the Financial Times.

The information used to support the claim came from two Western European countries and not from the documents that were found to have been forgeries, according to senior British government sources.  The United Kingdom did not share the intelligence it received with the United States because it “was not ours to share,” an official said (Huband/Adams, Financial Times, July 13).

The French secret service, the DGSE, is believed to have refused to allow the British MI6 intelligence service to provide the United States with “credible” intelligence that showed that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium ore from Niger, U.S. intelligence sources said yesterday.

MI6 had more than one “different and credible” piece of intelligence that showed that Iraq had attempted to purchase the uranium, but because it was provided by foreign intelligence services, under rules governing cooperation, it could not be shared without the originator’s permission, British officials said.  U.S. intelligence sources believe that MI6’s information came from the DGSE because Niger is a former French colony and its uranium mines are operated by a French company, according to the London Telegraph.  In addition, France was opposed to the war on Iraq and would have been against the idea of intelligence sharing, according to U.S. sources (Michael Smith, London Telegraph, July 14).

Blix Criticizes British 45-Minute Claim

The British government made “a fundamental mistake” in claiming that the Iraqi military could have deployed biological and chemical weapons within 45 minutes of receiving an order to do so, former U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix said.

“I think that was a fundamental mistake,” Blix said of the 45-minute claim, which was included in a British dossier on Iraq’s WMD programs released in September 2002.  “I don’t know exactly how they calculated this figure of 45 minutes in the dossier of September last year.  That seems pretty far off the mark to me,” he said.

Blix also said that the United Kingdom had “overinterpreted the intelligence they had.”

British Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, was “strongly convinced” that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, Blix said.

“I talked to him several times, and I never had any other impression,” Blix said.  “In fact, I was the one who was skeptical and critical, and said that I didn’t think that the evidence was so strong, and said so to the [U.N.] Security Council,” he said (Irving/Whitaker, London Independent, July 13).

Iraqi Militia Claims Al-Qaeda Connection

A group calling itself the “Islamic Armed Group of al-Qaeda, Fallujah branch” has said that it, and not former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, is behind the series of attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq, according to a videotape aired on the al-Arabiya satellite television network yesterday.

On the videotape, a distorted male voice tells U.S. troops to “leave Iraq’s territories and to live up to their promises.”  The voice also takes credit for the recent attacks on U.S. troops.

“By God, not one of (Saddam’s) followers carried out any of the Jihadi (holy war) operations like he claims,” the voice said.

The voice also warned that the “coming days … will show you the strike that will break America’s back” (Associated Press/Yahoo!News, July 14).

Back to top

U.S. Response:  New York Distributes Gas Masks to Police

More than 13,000 New York City police officers will be equipped with gas masks to respond to chemical or biological attacks, the New York Post reported today (see GSN, June 30).

More than 3,000 anti-terrorist police have already received the new lightweight “Millennium Masks” and 10,000 more are scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2003.

All police officials now carry “Tactical Response Hoods,” a mask that allows them to evacuate a contaminated area.

“We have different masks depending on what your job is in the department,” said New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly.  “I would like to move to this mask, which is a mask for working in a toxic environment rather than just escaping.  It’s a tighter seal.  The filters last for a longer period of time,” he added.

Kelly plans to eventually distribute the masks to all 34,000 police officers in the city, the Post reported (Hamilton/Lisi, New York Post, July 14).

Back to top

Iraq:  Bush, Senior U.S. Officials Defend State of the Union Address

U.S. President George W. Bush today said that U.S. intelligence agencies had approved his January State of the Union address, in which he alleged that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa — an allegation the White House admitted earlier this week was made in error (see GSN, July 10).

“I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services,” Bush said.

U.S. national security adviser Condoleezza Rice was more specific, saying the CIA had “cleared the speech in its entirety.”

The CIA had previously mentioned the claim that Iraq had sought to purchase uranium from Africa in a classified National Intelligence Assessment periodically provided to Bush, according to Rice.

“If the CIA — the director of central intelligence — had said ‘Take this out of the speech,’ it would have been gone,” Rice said of the Africa claim.  “We have a high standard for the president’s speeches,” she said.

The CIA only objected to a sentence that alleged that Iraq had attempted to obtain processed uranium known as “yellowcake,” Rice said.  “Some specifics about amount and place were taken out,” she said.

“With the changes in that sentence, the speech was cleared,” Rice said.  “The agency did not say they wanted that sentence (on uranium) out,” she added (Associated Press/New York Times, July 11).

U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said twice yesterday that the U.S. intelligence community had vetted Bush’s address and had approved the inclusion of the Africa claim.

“It was my understanding that it had been seen and cleared by the intelligence community,” Powell said during a press conference in Pretoria, South Africa.

“The sentence in the State of the Union was not put in there without the knowledge and approval of the intelligence committee that saw this speech,” Powell later said (Mike Nartker, GSN, July 11).

CBS Evening News has reported, however, that the White House ignored a CIA request to remove the Africa allegation from the State of the Union address, according to Reuters.

After reviewing Bush’s speech, CIA officials told the White House National Security Council that there was not enough intelligence to conclude that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa, according to CBS News.  White House officials said, however, that an earlier British report contained the allegation, and if Bush attributed the claim to the United Kingdom, then he would be factually correct, CBS News said.  CIA officials then dropped their objections (Reuters, July 11).

At the time of Bush’s State of the Union address in January, it was determined that it would be appropriate for Bush to include the allegation that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Africa, Powell said.  “There was no effort or attempt on the part of the president or anyone else in the administration to mislead or to deceive the American people,” he said.

Earlier this week, the White House acknowledged that it was wrong for Bush to have included the Africa claim in his address.  A major piece of evidence that was used to support the claim — documents purporting to show that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from Niger — was later determined by the International Atomic Energy Agency to be false.

Powell noted that he did not include the allegation in a presentation he made to the U.N. Security Council in early February on Iraq’s WMD programs.

“When I made my presentation to the United Nations and we really went through every single thing we knew about all of the various issues with respect to weapons of mass destruction, we did not believe that it was appropriate to use that example anymore.  It was not standing the test of time,” Powell said.  “And so I didn’t use it, and we haven’t used it since,” he said (Nartker, GSN).

The United Kingdom, however, has chosen to stand by the claim, citing additional, undisclosed evidence.  Senior Bush administration officials said yesterday that the CIA failed to persuade the United Kingdom in September 2002 to remove the Africa claim from an official intelligence dossier.

“We consulted about the paper and recommended against using that material,” a senior Bush administration official said.

British officials have said that the Bush administration has not been provided with the intelligence that supported the claim included in the British government’s September 2002 dossier, according to the Washington Post.  The United Kingdom received its intelligence from an unidentified “third country,” a diplomatic source said (Walter Pincus, Washington Post, July 11).

Powell yesterday offered tentative support for the United Kingdom’s decision to stand by its original assertion.

“I would not dispute them or disagree with them or say they’re wrong and we’re right, or we’re right and they’re wrong.  I wouldn’t do that, because intelligence is of that nature,” Powell said.  “Some people have more sources than others on a particular issue.  Some people have greater confidence in their analysis,” he said.

Powell also defended the overall U.S. intelligence on Iraq’s WMD efforts, as outlined in his U.N. Security Council presentation.  There was additional intelligence that was considered for inclusion in the presentation, but was ultimately rejected because of a lack of supporting sources, he said.

“The case I put down on the 5th of February, for an hour and 20 minutes, roughly, on terrorism, on weapons of mass destruction and on the human rights case … we stand behind,” Powell said (Nartker, GSN).

Retired U.S. Army Gen. Tommy Franks, who led U.S. troops in Iraq, said yesterday that he believed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction would ultimately be found, and that such a discovery would vindicate U.S. intelligence.

The coalition search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction “is not completed,” Franks told the House Armed Services Committee.  “And so I believe that we will either find the weapons or we will find evidence of the weapons of mass destruction.  And I believe … that will vindicate the intelligence that we received,” he said.

U.S. Senator John Kerry (D-Mass.) yesterday called for a congressional investigation into the handling of prewar U.S. intelligence.

“I believe we need an open, thorough, complete and absolutely believable investigation into the quality of American intelligence so that going forward from now the national security interests of our country will be properly protected,” Kerry said (Stephanie Griffith, Agence France-Presse, July 11).

British Officials Doubt Weapons Will Be Found

Meanwhile, senior British officials have said they no longer believe that stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq, according to the New York Times.

According to British news reports, officials have begun to say that while weapons of mass destruction had existed, they were either dismantled or hidden before the war.  They also said that interviews with Iraqi scientists and military officers might illustrate how such concealment or destruction had occurred (Warren Hoge, New York Times, July 11).

British Prime Minister Tony Blair convened a special Cabinet meeting yesterday to discuss measures to improve the government’s credibility and to confront reports that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was allegedly responsible for a BBC report that said officials doubted weapons would be found, according to the London Telegraph.  A spokesman for the secretary would not “confirm or deny” whether Straw had spoken to BBC political editor Andrew Marr.

A Blair spokesman said yesterday that the prime minister was “absolutely confident” that both actual weapons of mass destruction and evidence of WMD programs would be found.

“The prime minister is … absolutely confident that we will find evidence not only of his WMD programs, but concrete evidence of the product of those programs as well,” the spokesman said (George Jones, London Telegraph, July 11).

Former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said, however, that only the discovery of actual weapons of mass destruction would vindicate Blair’s decision to go to war.

“Parliament voted for war because it was told that [former Iraqi President] Saddam [Hussein] did have real weapons of mass destruction,” Cook said.  “We were told it was so urgent that we went to war, we could not let Hans Blix and the U.N. weapons inspectors have the extra few months they asked for to finish the job,” he said.

“To establish that that’s correct, you do have to produce the weapons, you do have to actually produce the factories; you cannot now say, ‘Well, there were some scientists around who might at some time have had the capacity to develop it,’” Cook said (Associated Press/USA Today, July 11).

Back to top

International Response:  British Diplomats Dispute U.S. Authority to Intercept Suspect Shipments

The United States has found itself in dispute with other members of the Proliferation Security Initiative over the existing U.S. authority to intercept suspect cargo shipments, the London Times reported today (see GSN, July 10).

Following a meeting yesterday of initiative partners in Brisbane, Australia, U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton said the United States is “prepared to undertake interdictions right now,” and would do so if needed.  British diplomatic sources, however, argued with Bolton’s interpretation, saying the United States must act in accordance with international law, according to the Times.

“All 11 participants agreed that any action that might be taken would have to be consistent with international law,” a British Foreign Office spokesman said.

Bolton said the group of 11 countries had reached an agreement that gave the United States the authority to intercept suspect shipments.  “There is broad agreement within the group that we have that authority,” he said (Michael Evans, London Times, July 11).

Meanwhile, two nonproliferation experts said today that while the initiative is a good start, a stronger international legal mechanism is also needed.

While the initiative may not completely prevent a country from shipping or receiving WMD materials, such as plutonium, it may have a strong deterrent effect, Brookings Institution researchers Michael Levi and Michael O’Hanlon said in a commentary published in today’s Financial Times.

“If rogue leaders knew there was a decent chance that their WMD exports would be intercepted — inviting U.S. retaliation — they might be deterred from sending such exports in the first place,” they wrote.

Levi and O’Hanlon also called for the development of a stronger legal mechanism to allow for the interception of ships or aircraft from rogue states, even without evidence that they are carrying suspect cargo.  For example, the United States should call on the U.N. Security Council to declare North Korean plutonium illegal on the basis that it was acquired under false pretenses, Levi and O’Hanlon wrote.  This in turn would help establish a low threshold for searches aimed at intercepting such illegal material and could provided a basis for naval interception, they said.

In addition, the United States could also argue that countries with demonstrated oppressive internal polices or sponsorship of terrorism merited special concern, Levi and O’Hanlon wrote.  The Security Council could then pass a resolution that said, by behaving illegally in either way, a state would lose its sovereign right to protection, thus providing automatic authority for cargo searches, they added (Levi/O’Hanlon, Financial Times, July 11).

Back to top

About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines

HOME  |  CONTACT US  |  GET INVOLVED  |  SITE MAP