| |
 |
Wednesday, January 18, 2006 |
Published on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 by the New York Times
2002 Memo Doubted Uranium Sale Claim
by Eric Lichtblau
WASHINGTON - A high-level intelligence assessment by the Bush administration concluded in early 2002 that the sale of uranium from Niger to Iraq was "unlikely" because of a host of economic, diplomatic and logistical obstacles, according to a secret memo that was recently declassified by the State Department.
Among other problems that made such a sale improbable, the assessment by the State Department's intelligence analysts concluded, was that it would have required Niger to send "25 hard-to-conceal 10-ton tractor-trailers" filled with uranium across 1,000 miles and at least one international border.
The analysts' doubts were registered nearly a year before President Bush, in what became known as the infamous "16 words" in his 2003 State of the Union address, said that Saddam Hussein had sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.
The White House later acknowledged that the charge, which played a part in the decision to invade Iraq in the belief that Baghdad was reconstituting its nuclear program, relied on faulty intelligence and should not have been included in the speech. Two months ago, Italian intelligence officials concluded that a set of documents at the center of the supposed Iraq-Niger link had been forged by an occasional Italian spy.
A handful of news reports, along with the Robb-Silberman report last year on intelligence failures in Iraq, have previously made reference to the early doubts expressed by the State Department's bureau of intelligence and research in 2002 concerning the reliability of the Iraq-Niger uranium link.
But the intelligence assessment itself - including the analysts' full arguments in raising wide-ranging doubts about the credence of the uranium claim - was only recently declassified as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group that has sought access to government documents on terrorism and intelligence matters. The group, which received a copy of the 2002 memo among several hundred pages of other documents, provided a copy of the memo to The New York Times.
The White House declined to discuss details of the declassified memo, saying the Niger question had already been explored at length since the president's State of the Union address.
"This matter was examined fully by the bipartisan Silberman-Robb commission, and the president acted on their broad recommendations to reform our intelligence apparatus," said Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council.
The public release of the State Department assessment, with some sections blacked out, adds another level of detail to an episode that was central not only to the debate over the invasion of Iraq, but also in the perjury indictment of I. Lewis Libby Jr., the former chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
In early 2002, the Central Intelligence Agency sent the former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV to Niger to investigate possible attempts to sell uranium to Iraq. The next year, after Mr. Wilson became a vocal critic of the Bush administration's Iraqi intelligence, the identity of his wife, Valerie Wilson, a C.I.A. officer who suggested him for the Niger trip, was made public. The investigation into the leak led to criminal charges in October against Mr. Libby, who is accused of misleading investigators and a grand jury.
The review by the State Department's intelligence bureau was one of a number of reviews undertaken in early 2002 at the State Department in response to secret intelligence pointing to the possibility that Iraq was seeking to buy yellowcake, a processed uranium ore, from Niger to reconstitute its nuclear program.
A four-star general, Carlton W. Fulford Jr., was also sent to Niger to investigate the claims of a uranium purchase. He, too, came away with doubts about the reliability of the report and believed Niger's yellowcake supply to be secure. But the State Department's review, which looked at the political, economic and logistical factors in such a purchase, seems to have produced wider-ranging doubts than other reviews about the likelihood that Niger would try to sell uranium to Baghdad.
The review concluded that Niger was "probably not planning to sell uranium to Iraq," in part because France controlled the uranium industry in the country and could block such a sale. It also cast doubt on an intelligence report indicating that Niger's president, Mamadou Tandja, might have negotiated a sales agreement with Iraq in 2000. Mr. Tandja and his government were reluctant to do anything to endanger their foreign aid from the United States and other allies, the review concluded. The State Department review also cast doubt on the logistics of Niger being able to deliver 500 tons of uranium even if the sale were attempted. "Moving such a quantity secretly over such a distance would be very difficult, particularly because the French would be indisposed to approve or cloak this arrangement," the review said.
Chris Farrell, the director of investigations at Judicial Watch and a former military intelligence officer, said he found the State Department's analysis to be "a very strong, well-thought-out argument that looks at the whole playing field in Niger, and it makes a compelling case for why the uranium sale was so unlikely."
The memo, dated March 4, 2002, was distributed at senior levels by the office of Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and by the Defense Intelligence Agency.
A Bush administration official, who requested anonymity because the issue involved partly classified documents, would not say whether President Bush had seen the State Department's memo before his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 2003.
But the official added: "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering operation. The president based his remarks in the State of the Union address on the intelligence that was presented to him by the intelligence community and cleared by the intelligence community. The president has said the intelligence was wrong, and we have reorganized our intelligence agencies so we can do better in the future."
Mr. Wilson said in an interview that he did not remember ever seeing the memo but that its analysis should raise further questions about why the White House remained convinced for so long that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Africa.
"All the people understood that there was documentary evidence" suggesting that the intelligence about the sale was faulty, he said.
© Copyright 2006 New York Times Company
###
10:57:54 AM 
|
|
Ross Chanin: American Freedom, Check the Mirror: Do You Like What You See?. This past weekend would have marked Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s 77th birthday.
So on Monday, when the first black female mayor of a major southern city, Mayor Shirley Franklin of Atlanta, asked us to "comprehend the full message of Dr. King," I could almost hear the late preacher's battle cry. King was almost present.
But what does comprehending the full message of Dr. King actually entail?
For many, our knee jerk memories tell us that King's mission was purely civil rights - securing the right to vote, bringing down the walls of segregation, and protecting those essential freedoms of speech and assembly. These memories are not wrong; they are also not complete.
King said of himself, "I'm much more than a civil rights leader." And he expressed this sentiment in his American Dream speech, when he orated, "we must join the war against poverty and believe in the dignity of all work...Give somebody a job and pay them some money so they can live and educate their children and buy a home and have the basic necessities of life."
What Dr. King was getting at in 1965, was that political rights, while indispensable to freedom, are aspects of a larger set of requisite, interconnected freedoms that individuals must posses in order to be truly free. He understood that civil rights victories would mean little for Americans who live without education, healthcare, social opportunity, employment or personal security.
This is an argument often heard today within the closed-off circles of academics, but rarely in the halls of Congress. It is an argument for expanding the very definition of what constitutes freedom in America.
A bold argument, for sure, but pretend for a moment you are a black five-year-old living in Harlem. You have no health insurance. And, put aside hopes for college and a good paying job for a moment. Guess what your chances are at making it past age forty?
They're not so good. As Amartya Sen illuminates in his 1998 book, Development as Freedom, men have a better chance of living beyond forty in third world nations like Bangladesh than do black men from your neighborhood.
Now ask yourself this question: as a black five-year-old growing up in Harlem, did you control the circumstances into which you were born? You did not.
As you did not control these circumstances, do you not deserve the Declaration of Independence's inalienable right to life any less than the white five-year-old who lives eighty blocks south on Central Park West?
So what does it say of a nation that does not provide health insurance to 11.4 percent of its children? What does it say of a nation, according to a 2005 Education Trust study, that spends about $900 less per pupil, per year on students educated in our nation's poorest school districts than those educated in the wealthiest?
It says that this nation is willing to deny you, the black five-year-old from Harlem, the very essence of what it is to be an American; it is willing to deny you what it is to be free.
Those who object to this expanded idea of American freedom may well point out that "the Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantee nothing of the kind to the American people." I agree. But could the Framers have dreamed of providing healthcare, economic opportunity and a solid education to all American citizens?
Of course not. But times have changed and it doesn't have to be that way any more. Our leaders in 2006 can and should dream new and different dreams from those of our leaders in 1776.
Today, and much more than at the time of this nation's birth, America has a chance to make good on its declaration that all men are created equal. Dr. King saw this potential in 1965 when he spoke of "the basic necessities of life" and the writing on the wall remains today. The only question that remains is, what does American freedom mean to you?
[The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
10:45:03 AM
|
|
Bob Burnett: Still Suspicious After All These Years. Which American religious group has been under surveillance for 350 years? It's the Quakers. So last week, when Vermont Senator Patrick Leahy http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060108/NEWS01/601080309/1009/NEWS05"> revealed that the Department of Defense has been spying on Burlington Quakers , it didn't come as a surprise. We're used to it.
Leahy's revelation came on the heels of the December 14th news that the National Security Agency spied on a Florida Quaker Meeting - labeled it a threat.
If you just heard about these outrages, you might ask why the White House cares about Quakers? Why expend public funds spying on a group that many Americans primarily associate with breakfast cereal?
The answer is that Quakers are liberal Christians who believe that Jesus taught his followers to work for peace on earth. We're against war and for justice. As a result, we disagree with the policies of the Bush Administration, as we do with the policies of most Administrations.
This got us in trouble early on. First, under Oliver Cromwell, in 1652, and then with King Charles II, we wouldn't join the English army. So we were spied upon, thrown in prison, and our Meeting Houses burned down. The persecution didn't end until 1689, when Quaker leader, William Penn, convinced King James II to sign the act of religious toleration. (Which, by the way, guaranteed freedom of religion for all faiths.)
In the meantime, many Quakers came to the American colonies hoping to find acceptance. While we did take sanctuary in New Jersey and Pennsylvania - founded by the same William Penn, we were persecuted in other states. This initiated an American tradition of spying on Quakers. We were under surveillance during the Civil War, the first and second World Wars, the Wars in Korea and in Vietnam. Why should the War on Terror be any different?
There are several Quaker practices that seem to drive politicians crazy, cause them to spy on us. But, it's not just American politicians. We were active in other countries like Germany, when the Nazis were in power, and Iraq, under the despicable Saddam Hussein. They, too, kept us under surveillance and, occasionally, imprisoned our representatives, or worse.
We hold three beliefs that incense politicians of all stripes. The first is that we don't agree that violence and war are the best way to get things done. Many Americans respond: Duh, no wonder you get hassled; violence is the American way and war is good for business.
We don't agree. More than that, we feel that it is our responsibility to let elected officials know that we don't accept their militaristic policies. We may sit silently in our Sunday Meetings, but we are vocal in the public arena. Quakers have the temerity to suggest that there may be a better way to bring about world peace than by threatening, or killing, those who disagree with us.
We have a second value that pushes the buttons of many politicians - we believe in equality. We hold that everyone should have a voice: young and old, black and white, gay and straight, men and women. Many of our leaders are women. (A grandmother was the organizer of the Florida anti-war meeting taped by the NSA.)
Finally, we hold a third belief that drives the powers that be completely bonkers - we believe in openness. Quakers take very seriously the teaching of Jesus that we should tell the truth all the time. We extend this to mean that we should open all of our meetings to everyone and that we should strive to be direct. While this tradition of openness gives us a certain cachet in the progressive community, it has often met with scorn in the political world. Many elected officials scoff: How can one do the public's business by being open and direct?
Despite criticism, we persist in our quaint practice of telling the truth. In Quaker-speak we call this, speaking truth to power. This means that if we are going to stage an anti-war protest - a frequent occurrence these days - we tell the authorities about it ahead of time. It also implies that if we are going to participate in acts of civil disobedience, such as blocking the entrance to the torture school - the Army School of the Americas at Fort Benning - we give prior warning. Quakers believe that directness is the key to building trust between adversaries: we should say what we mean and then doing what we say.
Sadly, the Bush Administration finds these Quaker beliefs to be threatening. They have joined a long list of Presidencies that find it necessary to keep us under surveillance. We're sorry that they feel this way and have a suggestion that may make their job easier.
Rather than tap our phones, videotape our gatherings with hidden cameras, or plant informers among us, why don't you do the obvious? Come into our meetings and ask us what we plan to do. We'll tell you the truth. We're Quakers.
[The Huffington Post | Full Blog Feed]
10:26:42 AM
|
|
Published on Wednesday, January 18, 2006 by CommonDreams.org
The Crime of Giving the Orders
by Norman Solomon
Legalized killing requires official justifications. The execution of Clarence Ray Allen early Tuesday morning was no exception.
A prosecutor explained that "he masterminded the murders of three innocent young people and conspired to attack the heart of our criminal justice system." And California's governor was stern when he denied a clemency request for the 76-year-old prisoner.
"The passage of time does not excuse Allen from the jury's punishment," Arnold Schwarzenegger said. Allen had been convicted of enlisting a fellow prisoner to kill witnesses against him in 1980.
On Monday, according to unnamed "officials" cited in a San Francisco Chronicle account, the condemned man "ordered a final meal of buffalo steak, Kentucky Fried Chicken, sugar-free pecan pie, sugar-free black walnut ice cream and whole milk."
Allen "was blind and mostly deaf, suffered from diabetes and had a nearly fatal heart attack in September only to be revived and returned to death row," the Associated Press recounted. His last breath would be determined by the state's timetable.
Around midnight, Allen "was assisted into the death chamber by four large correctional officers and lifted out of his wheelchair" -- just before the lethal injection. Righteously deploring murder, the state murdered again.
To recap, the prosecutor said that Clarence Ray Allen "masterminded the murders of three innocent young people" and "conspired to attack the heart of our criminal justice system." What could an intrepid prosecutor say about the machinations of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney as they pushed ahead for the U.S. war effort in Iraq? And why shouldn't rigorous investigations be underway to probe evidence that Bush and Cheney have engaged in systematic lawbreaking?
Such questions should be loud, public and insistent. While people in Washington's highest places demand endless benefits of countless doubts, we need to insist on accountability at the top of the U.S. government.
A jury condemned Clarence Ray Allen despite the fact that he did not pull the trigger on the sawed-off shotgun. The charge was that he got someone else to do it.
President Bush doesn't pull triggers. He commands. Like the official lying that preceded the Iraq war and sustains it, the killing is nonstop. And a constant media barrage conveys the deceptive assumption that legitimate authority is giving the orders.
Norman Solomon's latest book is "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." For information, go to: www.WarMadeEasy.com
###
10:18:56 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2006 Patricia Thurston.
|
|
|
|
|
