It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


who forged the Niger documents ?

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 10:13 AM
Who, according to you, forged the documents leading to bush's uranium claims ?

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 10:36 AM
what about MI6?

after all, the UK government still say they have 'other' intelligence from MI6 about Saddam attempting to purchase uranium and are not allowed to publish the evidence.

Besides Iraq had no uranium enrichment facilities and already has loads of uranium!

Tony Blair's excuse the other day was that 'we know that in the late 1980's Iraq purchased large quantities of uranium from Africa, therefor who can say he didn't again'

Blair loves talking bull$hit, but he took it to a new level there.

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 11:34 AM
Uh oh. Looks like Tenet's fighting back...

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Flinx
Uh oh. Looks like Tenet's fighting back...

I bet it's no major player, they wouldn't risk it. I wonder who it was

Back here in the UK i still think Alastair campbell may have to resign, being Blair's chief spin doctor, the departure of Campbell would un-doubtably spell more troule for Tony.

Here's what he actually said yesterday "We know in the 1980's that Iraq purchased from Niger over 270 tons of uranium, and therefore it is not beyond the bounds of possibility, lets at least put it like this, that they went back to Niger in the past" These words of wisdom from Blair, show that he is attempting to distance himself from the forgeries. This actually makes me question his personal knowledge of their authenticity incredibly, according to experts, they consisted of 8 pages and contained 12 'easily checkable errors'.

I will revise my answer in the poll of 'someone else' to 'Chalabi'

[Edited on 17-7-2003 by Rzarekta]

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 12:39 PM
Can you tell my why Blair got so cozy with Bush all of a sudden? I thought he was a liberal...kind of odd that he would side with Bush on anything. Maybe he was replaced with a clone...

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 01:16 PM
it's sort of an enigma, Flinx: Blair and Bush. Especially when Blair still seems to be friends w/ Clinton (remember all those reports about Clinton coaching Blair?)

Didn't this alleged intelligence come from Italy to France before making it's way to British intelligence then on to the CIA?

Heard that on NPR but haven't read too much on it. I'll start pouring out my French wine again!

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 02:19 PM

Originally posted by Bob88
it's sort of an enigma, Flinx: Blair and Bush. Especially when Blair still seems to be friends w/ Clinton (remember all those reports about Clinton coaching Blair?)

Didn't this alleged intelligence come from Italy to France before making it's way to British intelligence then on to the CIA?

Heard that on NPR but haven't read too much on it. I'll start pouring out my French wine again!

I think the French know alot more than many of us may know:


posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 03:02 PM

Originally posted by Flinx
Can you tell my why Blair got so cozy with Bush all of a sudden? I thought he was a liberal...kind of odd that he would side with Bush on anything. Maybe he was replaced with a clone...

it is quite amazing, i remember Blair was publicly putting his weight behing Al Gore, when Bush won, Blair in a panic, groveled and sniffled his way into Bush's good books incredibly quickly, and has been trapped under Bush ever since.

I believe Bush's chief lobbyist was barking at Downing Street the very next day with a list of demands.

He's like the good little boy who got in with the wrong crowd because of status issues, turned into a lying, thiefing scumbag and has to be punished none the less.

Blair is becoming more unpopular by the day, if he doesn't want the Conservatives to win the next election, he should resign.

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 03:05 PM
well - that's interesting. Anyone else find this all so very confusing? Brits are sticking by that assessment - Tenet is apologizing. Throw the French in and it's quite a riddle.

I can't help to think there is some politicizing going on here, well, lots of it. (election coming up and all) Case in point:

Carl Levin, Michigan Dem.

Read these:

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 03:20 PM
Any Niger Materials that have anything to do with the abilty to produce nuclear weapons all the materials get shipped down to south america for refinement.
How ever I dont belive the idea that saddam was trying to get his hands on what either goverment was saying. I have no question that was made up as far as who did it. I would have to say nsa or cia for the united states purposes. MI5 and MI6 are not real happy with the united states right now. It will more than likly come out later that the CIA put out the infomation just the same as blair did to sway the populations for a new war. The reason I say that the CIA did it is I saw a report on abc not that I belive everything that is in what I call mainstreem media. Never the less It was a compiled report from reporter's that worked for the bbc in the uk. According to abc news the reports that the bbc in london came up with is the m.o.d put some of the reports out to blair for what was quoted as to make the infomation seem more sassy or sexy or somthing like that. I was not really paying that much attention to it. If I find a video link on it I will post it here. This came on the news about 1 month ago.

posted on Jul, 17 2003 @ 03:58 PM
'more sexy' - i believe you may be confusing this with the claim that Iraq had WMD capable of being launched in 45 minutes.

The BBC's Andrew Gilligan accused the Government (Alastair Campbell) of 'sexing up' the dossier on Iraq's weapons.

Here is the latest on that aspect

posted on Jul, 18 2003 @ 11:25 AM
Colonel: what are your thoughts on Levin's flip flop??

posted on Jul, 18 2003 @ 02:29 PM
Colonel, you're not avoiding me, are you?

[Edited on 18-7-2003 by Bob88]

posted on Jul, 19 2003 @ 12:38 AM
Cheney Was Bush’s Triggerman in Escalating Intelligence Catfight

Vice President Dick Cheney was the true triggerman behind waging the imperialist war on Iraq.

Exclusive To American Free Press
By Gordon Thomas

Vice President Dick Cheney was the trigger which exploded the long-simmering war between the White House and the CIA’s embattled director, George Tenet.

He ordered Tenet last January to insert the now notorious 16 words that there was “credible” British intelligence that Saddam had tried in 2001 to buy uranium ore (yellowcake) from Niger, the impoverished West African nation.

Three months before, in October 2002, Tenet had personally intervened to stop President Bush from making such a claim in a speech asserting that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Tenet told Bush he could not support the claim. When Cheney told him last January about the “credible” British intelligence, Tenet repeated his warning that the CIA could not endorse it. In what one account says was a “tense meeting,” Cheney bluntly overruled Tenet.

The vice president’s action cast a shadow over British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s visit to Washington.

Bush feels Britain’s intelligence services, MI6 and MI5, have not kept the CIA properly informed. Blair insists his spy agencies could not pass on more information on the Niger yellowcake because, according to a London Foreign Office officer, “under the rules governing cooperation they have with foreign intelligence services, our service could not share intelligence from those sources without the originator’s permission.” ...

...“We don’t believe for a moment that Tenet just fell on his own sword. What happened has all the hallmarks of Dick Cheney,” said an MI6 source close to the agency’s director-general, Sir Richard Dearlove.

The reverberations have led to calls in London for Blair to resign—and efforts by former White House spokesman Ari Fleischer to bring closure to the row on the eve of his own departure from the administration.

Clare Short, who resigned from Blair’s cabinet over Britain going to war “on a false pretense,” said Blair “should now resign before matters get nastier for him. Trust in him and Bush is going down by the day.”

How all this happened is one of the most shocking stories to emerge in the post-Iraq war inquest.


The complex story has simple roots. In November 2001, Italian secret service agents were approached by a West African diplomat. He said he had details of a plot by the Iraqis to buy “hundreds of tons” of uranium ore from Niger. He produced supporting documents.

On the surface, the claim sounded credible. Iraq had already purchased 200 tons of yellowcake from Niger in 1986, the Italians told the CIA station in Rome. The station chief sent a detailed report to Langley, including the documents the African diplomat had provided.

The material was sent to the State Department. The U.S. ambassador to Niger at the time, Barbro Owens-Kirk Patrick, was asked to assess all the material.

But while she was doing so, Cheney intervened. He told a senior diplomat, Joseph Wilson—who had first-hand knowledge of Niger—that he wanted him to go there and investigate the claims.

By the time he arrived, Owens-Kirkpatrick had dismissed the documents as “crude forgeries”—and the African diplomat’s claims to the Italians as “pure fantasy.”

Wilson concurred. His own investigation showed that Niger’s security on yellowcake—introduced after Saddam’s previous purchase—was too rigorous for any Iraqi attempt to purchase uranium ore to have gone undetected.

In March 2002, Wilson briefed Tenet. He passed on Wilson’s findings to his British counterpart, Sir Richard Dearlove of MI6. He informed the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller, and John Scarlett, the former spy who now chairs Britain’s Joint Intelligence Committee. His job is to know anything that can be known about Saddam and his WMD.

On Sept. 24, 2002, Blair published his government’s dossier on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. It included the claim “Iraq has sought the supply of significant amounts of uranium from Africa.”

It did not say when—let alone whether—this had been in the 1980s. Neither was Niger mentioned. But to Wilson it was “obvious this was the same story as in the discredited documents.”

There the matter may have died as far as the White House went if Bush had not wanted to include the details in his October speech of last year.

Having headed him off, Tenet believed the bogus Niger connection was over. But then Cheney made his fateful visit to Langley last January to demand that Tenet should allow the Niger story to form part of Bush’s State of the Union speech.

Tenet, say credible sources, was horrified. He reminded Cheney that both Owens-Kirkpatrick and Wilson had refuted any Niger connection.

Cheney was insistent. He said there was credible evidence from British intelligence. He cited the Blair report. He reminded Tenet of Saddam’s previous acquisition of yellowcake in the 1980s.

Tenet had explained Niger had no capability to enrich uranium ore—the basic prerequisite to producing a nuclear bomb. He added that, after the first gulf war ended, UN inspectors had destroyed Saddam’s essential equipment that could turn the ore into fissionable material.

The CIA was certain that Iraq had not been able to repair the equipment. Tenet also reminded Cheney he had personally intervened to stop Bush including the “Niger story” in his speech three months before, in October 2002.

Cheney, according to one CIA source, “came close to critical mass.”

He told Tenet that National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice had now received “good intelligence” from London that Saddam had tried to buy uranium ore from Niger in 2001. Therefore that would go into the State of the Union speech—and Tenet must accept the British intelligence.

“The clear implication from Cheney was that the Brits knew more than we did,” said the CIA source.

Bush, traveling back from his African trip, told reporters that Tenet had “cleared” the reference to Niger.

Rice went further: “If the CIA director had said take this out, it would have gone, without question.”

Tenet did say that. Cheney overruled him—once more citing the British “credible sources.” So who were they?

Intelligence sources believe there are two. The French secret service (DGSE) and Mossad.

Both have a strong presence in West Africa.

Niger is a former French colony.

Israel receives a substantial portion of its oil from adjoining Nigeria.

Niger’s uranium mines are run by a French company which is supervised by the French Atomic Energy Commission.

In London, MI6 insists the evidence from these sources remains “credible.”

British intel sources say that “a further factor in the refusal to share its information about Niger with the CIA is concern that the White House would publish it—and lead to our sources being uncovered,” said a London source.

On his trip to London to meet Blair, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon was accompanied by Meir Dagan, head of Mossad. He met Sir Richard Dearlove and Eliza Manningham-Buller.

High on their list was the Niger uranium claim. No one still knows if the French-Mossad intelligence is credible.

Did Mossad provide it as part of Israel’s own strategy to ramp-up the war against Iraq?

Did French intelligence refuse to allow the CIA to see its own intelligence because the Paris government was strongly opposed to the coming war with Iraq—and would not wish to provide Washington with any support for military action?

At a recent meeting, Bush confronted Blair with these questions.

But there is little optimism that there will be resolution to a growing crisis which has already blighted the leadership of both men.

[Edited on 19-7-2003 by MaskedAvatar]

posted on Jul, 19 2003 @ 12:48 AM

But there is little optimism that there will be resolution to a growing crisis which has already blighted the leadership of both men.

In this instance, the bottom line is indeed the bottom line.

new topics

top topics


log in